You are here >

Weekly Update Volume 31, Issue 31

The D.C. Circuit held that EPA exceeded its authority under the CAA when it promulgated a rule allowing it to treat as Native American country areas where the Native American status is in question, and proposing to make state/tribal jurisdictional determinations on a case-by-case basis rather than through notice-and-comment rulemaking. Under the CAA's plain language, EPA's authority to implement a federal operating permits program is premised on the failure of a state or tribe to implement its own program, not some overarching national authority. Where a valid state program exists, EPA may implement a federal program only for Native American country itself, not for lands the status of which EPA deems in question. Thus, prior to implementing any federal operating permits program, EPA must determine the scope of state and tribal jurisdiction. Additionally, in making these jurisdictional determinations, EPA must use notice-and-comment rulemaking. Congress has explicitly required the use of notice-and-comment in determining adequate authority when the Agency is evaluating state plans, therefore, EPA's decision to use separate adjudicatory proceedings that do not include notice-and-comment is contrary to law. The CAA further requires notice to a state whenever the administrator makes a determination that a permitting authority is not adequately administering and enforcing a program. This includes determinations of adequate authority and, thus, determinations of jurisdiction. Therefore, EPA's rule is vacated in part and remanded. Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 99-1151 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 30, 2001) (15 pp.).

The Ninth Circuit held that CERCLA and California state law do not preempt the field of hazardous waste remediation either explicitly or by implication, but that certain sections of a municipality's hazardous waste law are preempted by state and federal law under the doctrine of conflict preemption. After discovering groundwater contamination, and in an effort with the state environmental agency to clean up the contamination, the municipality enacted a hazardous waste remediation law, MERLO, modeled on CERCLA and the HSAA, which is a state hazardous waste law. Two insurers of PRPs brought suit against the municipality claiming that MERLO was preempted by state and federal law. The district court erred in abstaining from deciding whether MERLO is preempted by state law. Although the interpretation of a local ordinance that enables the city to pay for hazardous waste remediation it could not otherwise afford is undoubtedly an area of serious local concern, it cannot truly be said that federal intrusion is undesirable, thereby eliminating the court's responsibility to determine whether the municipality's law is preempted by state or federal law. Additionally, the court cannot say that there is a reasonable possibility that a state court's clarification of state law might obviate the need for the federal constitutional ruling. As for the preemption issue, MERLO is not preempted by CERCLA and the HSAA under the doctrine of field preemption. CERCLA anticipates that states will enact supplemental remedial environmental legislation, and CERCLA does not not preclude states from redelegating their authority to political subdivisions. Similarly, the HSAA contemplates the ability of cities to adopt parallel municipal environmental ordinances and participate in the process of hazardous waste remediation. The portions of MERLO, however, that allow the municipality to bring direct actions against a PRP's insurer beyond what is permitted by California law, protect the municipality from contribution claims by other PRPs, and have a burden of proof standard that is inconsistent with the HSAA are preempted due to conflict preemption. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. City of Lodi, No. 99-15614 (9th Cir. Oct. 30, 2001) (86 pp.).

The D.C. Circuit held that the Surface Transportation Board did not have to conduct an environmental analysis under NEPA or the Trails Act before issuing a certificate of interim trail use (CITU) for a rail line in Idaho under the Trails Act. Because the Board lacks significant discretion on whether to issue a CITU, NEPA does not apply. The Board's actions are merely ministerial. Decisions made by the Board before issuing a CITU relate either to the statutory conditions for trail sponsorship or to decisions that Congress has determined shall be made by the railroad and trail sponsor in a voluntary agreement, if any. Additionally, the Trails Act itself does not require a separate environmental analysis prior to issuance of a CITU. Citizens Against Rails-to-Trails v. Surface Transportation Board, No. 00-1387 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 26, 2001) (9 pp.).

The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part a district court's sentencing of two individuals convicted for making materially false statements in violation of the SDWA by submitting reports containing falsified turbidity measurements to a state water district. The false statements made by one of the individuals came within the jurisdiction of EPA for purposes of prosecution under SDWA §1001. Although EPA's enforcement authority is secondary to the state's, its enforcement actions evince a federal interest in what reasonably must be considered an official function of EPA--ensuring safe drinking water for all persons. Additionally, because the individual's statements influenced the course of an investigation, which still could result in an agency enforcement action, they were materially false for purposes of her prosecution. Further, the district court did not err in refusing to enhance the individuals' sentences under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) §2Q1.3(b)(1) because their recordkeeping offense cannot be said to reflect an effort to conceal a substantive environmental offense under the SDWA or any other federal statute. The only substantive offense involved in this case was the violation of SDWA §1001, and under either the U.S.S.G. guideline used by the district court or the one proposed by the government, the individuals' base offense level for this criminal conduct would be the same. The district court did err, however, by not enhancing the second individual's sentence under an abuse of trust provision. Customers of the water district placed a high degree of trust in the district to provide them with potable drinking water and granted the district substantial discretion as to how to provide such a service. The district in turn placed its trust in the second individual. Therefore, the quasi-fiduciary trust relationship between the district and its customers should be imputed to the second individual, and, thus, an abuse-of-trust enhancement is appropriate. On remand the court should correct the error. Finally, the district court correctly applied a special skill enhancement to the first individual's sentence because her training and experience in water treatment plant operation made it significantly easier for her to falsify turbidity readings and to conceal the falsifications from the regulators. United States v. White, Nos. 98-6609 et al. (6th Cir. Oct. 29, 2001) (14 pp.).

A district court denied a concentrated animal feeding operation's (CAFO's) motion to dismiss an environmental group's claims that the CAFO violated various provisions of the CWA and RCRA. The CAFO failed to obtain an NPDES permit before discharging pollutants, and the text and structure of the CWA taken as a whole support the court's conclusion that the CWA subjects the CAFO to the NPDES permit requirement. Additionally, the CAFO's argument that it is not a CAFO due to a design exception, and, therefore, not subject to the NPDES program, is one of fact not appropriately resolved under a motion to dismiss. Further, the CAFO's argument that sprayfields at its operations cannot fall within the definition of a point source because animals are not confined in the sprayfield area is nonsensical. Excluding parts of the waste management system from the definition of a CAFO by limiting the CAFO area to the land underneath the feeding areas would compromise the goals of the CWA by allowing widespread pollution by industrial feedlots pumping waste into other areas of their farms. The sprayfield areas are a vital part of the CAFO's operations and cannot be separated from the confinement areas merely because the waste has been moved from one area of the farm to another. Moreover, the question of whether the CAFO returns animal waste to the soil for fertilization purposes or instead applies waste in such large quantities that its usefulness as organic fertilizer is eliminated, and, therefore, a solid waste under RCRA, is a question of fact. Water Keeper Alliance, Inc. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., Nos. 4:01-CV-27-H(3), -30-H(3) (E.D.N.C. Sept. 20, 2001) (Howard, J.) (13 pp.) (Counsel for the plaintiffs included Daniel E. Estrin of White Plains, NY).

The New York Court of Appeals held that losses from environmental injury claims involving decades of commercial activities at numerous industrial and waste disposal sites may not be aggregated as a single disaster and/or casualty under an insurance policy between an insurer and its reinsurer. The insurer sought payment from the reinsurer after federal, state, and local governments commenced environmental actions directed at more than 150 plants and disposal sites it insured throughout the country, many of which had been in operation for over 60 years. The term disaster and/or casualty in the reinsurance policy, however, does not cover the entirety of the claim here, as the insurer argues. Under the "disaster and/or casualty" provision, the reinsurer could aggregate claims if the "accidents, occurrences and/or causative incidents" have a spatial or temporal relationship to one another and a "common origin." This construction of the policy comports with the policy's definition of "each and every loss," which limits loss to any one disaster and/or casualty. These constructions of the policy demonstrate that the parties did not intend for the reinsurer to simply group together all losses as a single disaster and/or casualty, but sought to allow aggregation only where the losses are linked spatially or temporally and share a common origin. Because none of the complaints contains an allegation that the contaminated sites bear a spatial or temporal relationship to one other, the insurer's single allocation of its settlement with the insured plants and sites does not fall within the ambit of a single disaster and/or casualty under the reinsurance policy. Therefore, summary judgment was properly granted to the reinsurer. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, Nos. 123, 124 (N.Y. Oct, 16, 2001) (19 pp.).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that an appellate court correctly reversed a trial court's grant of JNOV in favor of a chemical manufacturer that was denied insurance coverage for soil, groundwater, and surface water pollution at one its sites. Shortly after purchasing the site in 1964, the manufacturer discovered that the site was extensively contaminated with arsenic. Although the manufacturer undertook remedial measures, arsenic waste continued to be produced. Later that same year the manufacturer added the site to existing comprehensive general liability insurance coverage it held with an insurer. Once CERCLA was enacted, EPA notified the manufacturer that it was strictly liable for the cleanup costs associated with the site. In 1988, the manufacturer notified its insurer that it was asserting a claim to cover the cleanup costs and the insurer denied the claim. After a jury found in favor of the insurer, the trial court granted JNOV to the manufacturer, but the appellate court reversed. Under the known loss doctrine, one may not obtain insurance for a loss that either has already taken place or is in progress. In a case of first impression in Pennsylvania, the appellate court correctly determined that the standard for the known loss defense in this case should be whether the evidence shows that the insured was charged with knowledge that reasonably demonstrates that it was or should have been aware of likely exposure to losses that would reach the level of coverage. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the insurer, the evidence easily supports the jury's conclusion that the manufacturer knew of damage or injury for which there would be legal liability large enough to reach the excess layers of insurance. Therefore, the reversal of the grant of JNOV was appropriate. Similarly, the jury reasonably determined that the manufacturer intentionally and fraudulently withheld information concerning contamination at the site from the insurer, and, therefore, the appellate court did not err in reversing the trial court's grant of JNOV to the manufacturer on this issue. Finally, the appellate court correctly determined that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether the insurers were prejudiced by the 24-year delay between the purchasing of the insurance and the resulting claim for coverage and discovery of contamination at the site. Rohm & Haas Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., No. J-147-00 (Pa. Oct. 18, 2001) (14 pp.).

The EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) largely upheld an administrative law judge's (ALJ's) finding that a chemical manufacturing company violated the CWA by failing to prepare and implement an SPCC plan, which deals with oil spill prevention, in accordance with regulatory guidelines. The ALJ erred in determining that the SPCC guidelines require secondary containment on a tank-by-tank basis and that the manufacturer's system was inadequate because it did not provide sufficient secondary containment around individual oil tanks. Nevertheless, the manufacturer failed to install engineered structures to confine spills as contemplated by the guidelines. Moreover, in preparing its SPCC plan the manufacturer failed to describe how its facility-wide oil containment system would assure secondary containment in accordance with the guidelines. Thus, the manufacturer failed to meet the regulatory requirements to produce a carefully thought-out SPCC plan. Additionally, the fact that the manufacturer may not have experienced an oil spill into navigable water and the supposed inconsequentiality of deficiencies in the SPCC plan due to the company's allegedly superior environmental record and staff provide no grounds for reversal of any of the ALJ's liability findings or a reduction of the assessed penalty. The penalty assessment is reduced by $1,500, however, because the ALJ erred when he approved an enhancement of the gravity component of the penalty based on the major environmental impact of a worst-case spill from the manufacturer's facility. The ALJ was not informed as to the full range of environmental considerations. However, the manufacturer's assertion that its status as a small minority-operated business with limited capabilities and the EAB's conclusion that the ALJ erred in finding that SPCC guidelines call for tank-by-tank secondary containment do not support or justify a further reduction in the assessed penalty. In re Industrial Chemicals Corp., CWA Appeal No. 00-7 (EPA EAB Oct. 15, 2001) (30 pp.).

EPA exempted motorcycles with emission control devices that could be affected by the use of leaded gasoline from having to be equipped with gasoline tank filler inlet restrictors. 66 FR 54955 (10/31/01).

EPA made minor amendments to the generic MACT standards as they apply to surge control vessels and bottoms receiver vessels. 66 FR 55843 (11/2/01).

EPA proposed to allocate essential-use allowances for production and import of ozone depleting substances for use in medical devices and Space Shuttle and Titan Rockets, and to extend the general exemption for laboratory and analytical applications through the year 2005 as consistent with the Montreal Protocol. 66 FR 55145 (11/1/01).

EPA approved a negative declaration submitted by Puerto Rico that there are no existing small municipal waste combustion units in the Commonwealth. 66 FR 54715 (10/30/01).

HAZARDOUS WASTES & SUBSTANCES:

EPA entered into a proposed administrative settlement under CERCLA §122(h) in connection with the Chemical Insecticide Corporation site in Edison Township, New Jersey. 66 FR 54524 (10/29/01).

EPA entered into a proposed administrative settlement site under CERCLA §122(i) in connection with the M Metal site in Indianapolis, Indiana. 66 FR 54525 (10/29/01).

EPA entered into a proposed administrative order on consent under CERCLA §122(h) in connection with the Molycorp, Inc., site in Taos County, New Mexico. 66 FR 54525 (10/29/01).

EPA entered into a proposed administrative settlement under CERCLA §122(h) in connection with the Service First Barrel and Drum site in Salt Lake City, Utah. 66 FR 54769 (10/30/01).

EPA entered into a proposed administrative settlement under CERCLA §122(i) in connection with the Cliff/Dow Dump site in Marquette, Michigan. 66 FR 55664 (11/2/01).

EPA proposed a rule to implement a pilot project under the Project XL program that would provide site-specific regulatory flexibility under the CAA, the CWA, and RCRA for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration White Sands Test Facility in Las Cruces, New Mexico. 66 FR 55049 (10/31/01).

SMCRA PROGRAM APPROVALS:

OSM proposed to approve an amendment to Louisiana's regulatory program under SMCRA. 66 FR 55609 (11/2/01).

OSM proposed to approve an amendment to Mississippi's regulatory program under SMCRA. 66 FR 55611 (11/2/01).

WATER QUALITY:

EPA announced the availability of the draft NPDES general permit for construction dewatering activity discharges to certain waters of Massachusetts and New Hampshire. 66 FR 54526 (10/29/01).

WILDLIFE:

FWS issued an updated list of plant and animal species native to the United States that are candidates or that have been proposed for addition to the lists of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants under the ESA. 66 FR 54807 (10/30/01).

FWS and the Forest Service announced the Federal Subsistence Board's in-season management regulatory adjustments and closures to protect chinook and chum salmon escapement in the Kuskokwim River drainage. 66 FR 54931 (10/31/01).

FWS and the Forest Service announced the Federal Subsistence Board's in-season management regulatory adjustments and closures to protect sockeye salmon escapement in the Redoubt and Salmon Lakes drainages. 66 FR 54934 (10/31/01).

FWS and the Forest Service announced the Federal Subsistence Board's in-season management actions to protect chinook and chum salmon escapement in the Yukon River drainage. 66 FR 55092 (11/1/01).

U.S. DOJ NOTICES OF SETTLEMENTS:

United States v. New Castle County, Delaware, No. 01:586-SLR (D. Del. Aug. 29, 2001). A settling CWA defendant that discharged pollutants into U.S. navigable waters via a municipal separate storm sewer system without a permit and that failed to obtain an effective NPDES permit must pay a $250,000 civil penalty, must extend a sanitary sewer to a group of homes with failing septic systems, and must hook up a minimum of 40 residential properties. A second defendant must pay $125,000 in civil penalties and must complete a stormwater retrofit project for a 5.58-mile long section of Interstate Highway 95. 66 FR 54781 (10/30/01).

In re Velie Circuits, Inc., No. SA 96-11768 LR (C.D. Cal. Bank. Ct. Oct. 9, 2001). Under a proposed bankruptcy settlement agreement, the debtor will grant the United States an allowed general unsecured claim of $80,000 in connection with U.S. response costs incurred at the Omega Chemical Superfund site in Whittier, California. 66 FR 54783 (10/30/01).

United States v. Friedland, No. 96-N-1213 (D. Colo. Oct. 10, 2001). Three settling CERCLA defendants involved in bankruptcy proceedings will grant the United States and the state of Colorado an allowed general unsecured claim of $20,288,080 for recovery costs incurred at the Summitville Mine Superfund site near Del Norte, Colorado. 66 FR 55697 (11/2/01).

H.R. 2585 (wildlife; fish), which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the feasibility of providing adequate upstream and downstream passage for fish at the Chiloquin Dam on the Sprague River, Oregon, was passed by the House. 147 Cong. Rec. H7380-81 (daily ed. Oct. 30, 2001).

H.R. 2925 (Bureau of Reclamation; dams), which would amend the Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992 in order to provide for the security of dams, facilities, and resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation, was passed by the Senate, clearing the measure for the President. 147 Cong. Rec. S11248 (daily ed. Oct. 30, 2001).

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 483 (Native Americans) was reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rep. No. 107-257; 147 Cong. Rec. H7528 (daily ed. Oct. 30, 2001). The bill concerns the use of the trust land and resources of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon.

H.R. 1776 (national heritage area) was reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rep. No. 107-256; 147 Cong. Rec. H7528 (daily ed. Oct. 30, 2001). The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area in west Houston, Texas.

H.R. 2311 (energy and water development) was reported by the Committee of Conference. H. Rep. No. 107-258; 147 Cong. Rec. H7528 (daily ed. Oct. 30, 2001). The bill would make appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002.

H.R. 2585 (wildlife, fish) was reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rep. No. 107-255; 147 Cong. Rec. H7528 (daily ed. Oct. 30, 2001). The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the feasibility of providing adequate upstream and downstream passage for fish at the Chiloquin Dam on the Sprague River, Oregon.

BILLS INTRODUCED

S. 1590 (Voinovich, R-Ohio) (NEPA; energy facilities) would amend NEPA to improve the environmental review process that is associated with authorizations required under federal law for construction, operation, or maintenance of energy facilities. 147 Cong. Rec. S11198 (daily ed. Oct. 30, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

S. 1593 (Jeffords, I-Vt.) (water supply) would authorize the EPA Administrator to establish a grant program to support research projects on critical infrastructure protection for water supply systems. 147 Cong. Rec. S11198 (daily ed. Oct. 30, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

S. 1596 (Reid, D-Nev.) (land acquisition) would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire certain land located in Nye County, Nevada. 147 Cong. Rec. S11286 (daily ed. Oct. 31, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

S. 1608 (Smith, R-N.H.) (water quality) would establish a program to provide grants to drinking water and wastewater facilities to meet immediate security needs. 147 Cong. Rec. S11286 (daily ed. Oct. 31, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

H.R. 3178 (Boehlert, R-N.Y.) (water quality) would authorize EPA to provide funding to support research, development, and demonstration projects for the security of water infrastructure. 147 Cong. Rec. H7528 (daily ed. Oct. 30, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Science.

H.R. 3187 (McInnis, R-Colo.) (FLPMA) would amend FLPMA to require the value of public benefits created by state and local governments and nonprofit entities to be offset against the fee charged for certain rights-of-way held by those entities. 147 Cong. Rec. H7529 (daily ed. Oct. 30, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources.

H.R. 3198 (Putnam, R-Fla.) (food quality) would respond to the vulnerability of the U.S. agricultural production and food supply system to international terrorism. 147 Cong. Rec. H7591 (daily ed. Oct. 31, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Agriculture.

Emergency regulations, approved Oct. 9, available at www.adem.state.al.us/pands. The regulations are necessary to clarify ADEM’s responsibilities and legal authority to issue permits for solid waste disposal facilities. A permit issued by ADEM for a landfill in Lowndes County was appealed to the Montgomery County Circuit Court last year. The court issued a stay of the permit on Nov. 29, 2000. In its ruling, the court stated that the permit should be stayed because ADEM had not adopted the State Solid Waste Management Plan as a regulation. ADEM took the position that it has no statutory authority to implement parts of the plan, and some of the plan’s recommendations have been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court (e.g., flow control and differential disposal fees). In addition, ADEM has appealed the Circuit Court decision and concluded that it should not issue any solid waste disposal permits until the appeal was adjudicated, reasoning that the nature of the ruling had applicability to other solid waste permits.

Governor Don Siegelman, in a letter to the Environmental Management Commission Chairman Dr. Richard A. Thigpen, concluded that an emergency exists with reference to the issuance and reissuance of solid waste permits in the state. "If you adopt this emergency rule at your October 9, 2001, meeting, the rule will be in effect for 120 days, giving the court time to rule and bringing us into the new legislative session. If either the court or the legislature acts promptly, the situation will be resolved," Governor Siegelman wrote.

As of Sept. 29, some 58 solid waste permits around the state have expired and are pending renewal. Permit applications for two new landfills have also been received.

Revisions to the Division 13 Code are being proposed to permanently incorporate adopt Phase I and Phase II of the State Solid Waste Management Plan into the Division 13 regulations. Phase I of the state Solid Waste Management Plan was submitted to ADEM on Nov. 10, 1989, and Phase II was submitted to ADEM on April 19, 1991. Code of Alabama 1975, §§22-27-40 et seq. requires ADEM to adopt the state Solid WasteManagement Plan as a regulation. The purpose of this rulemaking will be to adopt as a regulation all parts of the state Solid Waste Management Plan that ADEM has statutory authority to regulate. The proposed rule also requires counties and some municipalities to revise their local solid waste management plans and requires ADEM to revise the state Solid Waste Management Plan every 10 years. Hearing Dec. 17; comments due Dec. 18. See http://www.adem.state.al.us/EduInfo/Calendar/hearings/10div13.htm and http://www.adem.state.al.us/RegsPermit/PropRules/proprule.htm

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

Revisions to the Division 3 Code are being proposed to incorporate by reference changes to the new source performance standards (NSPS) and national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) from April 10, 2000, to Aug. 27, 2001, inclusive. The Consolidated Federal Air Rule (CAR) is being proposed to be incorporated by reference into the Air Code as Chapter 335-3-11A. Other key revisions include the state plan required under §§111(d) and 129 of the federal CAA, which will incorporate the Emission Guidelines for Existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Units into Chapter 335-3-3; correction of a numbering inconsistency in Chapter 335-3-14; correction of a citation error in Chapter 335-3-16; and Chapter 335-3-18 is being revised to incorporate by reference changes to the federal acid rain regulations pertaining to the removal of the industrial utility units exemption and also a revision to a definition. The Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Gas Emissions (MSWLF) regulations are being revised in Chapter 335-3-19. Also, Appendix G is being revised to amend the definition of glycol ethers. Chapters 335-3-10 (NSPS), 335-3-11 (NESHAPs), 335-3-11A (CAR), 335-3-16 (major source operating permits), 335-3-18 (acid rain), and 335-3-19 (MSWLFs) are not considered as a part of the federally enforceable SIP. As such, any revisions to these Chapters/Rule are not proposed to be incorporated into Alabama's SIP. Hearing Dec. 5; comments due Dec. 18. See http://www.adem.state.al.us/RegsPermit/PropRules/proprule.htm

Proposed revisions to Division 7, Chapters 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, and Appendices A and D. Hearing Nov. 7; comments due Nov. 9. These amendments are being proposed to conform to recent changes to federal drinking water regulations. The proposed amendments: (1) modify monitoring requirements for lead and copper, (2) modify public notification requirements for water systems that incur drinking water violations, and (3) add a new category of water system that includes apartment complexes and trailer parks that purchase water from an existing water system and resell to their tenants. Specifically, 335-7-1 and 335-7-4 are being revised to add a new classification of water systems to be known as "Segmental Water System." This class of water system will include apartment complexes and trailer parks that purchase water from a permitted public water system and submeter and resell the water to their tenets. The definition for "Segmental Water System" and "Consecutive Water System" has been added to 335-7-1 and the requirements for these types of systems has been added to 335-7-4. 335-7-2 is being revised in response to changes in the U.S. EPA's public notification rule. The major changes include requiring water systems to notify their customers within 24 hours of an acute maximum contaminant level (MCL) violation, 30 days for any non-acute MCL violation and to allow water systems to utilize their consumer confidence report for monitoring violations if they meet certain criteria. These changes also include minor revisions to the required content of the public notices. Rule 335-7-10 is being revised to include the requirement for water systems to develop a disinfection byproduct monitoring plan that was omitted the previous time that drinking water regulations were modified. 335-7-8 and 335-7-11 are being modified in response to changes in EPA’s lead and copper monitoring requirements. Water systems will be required to collect the minimum number of samples regardless of type of plumbing materials, samples can be invalidated and monitoring waivers can be given to systems that meet certain criteria. Some current reporting requirements are also being eliminated and water systems will be allowed to monitor every three years after completion of the initial monitoring requirements if lead and copper levels are low. The method for determining compliance with water quality parameters is also being modified. 335-7-13 is being modified to eliminate the maximum loan amount and to establish minimum load amounts for EPA direct funds and state bond funds.335-7-14 is being modified to remove the appendixes from the chapter. The appendix is being modified to add the appendixes from 335-7-14 and in response to changes in EPA’s required language for public notifications for drinking water violations. See http://www.adem.state.al.us/EduInfo/Calendar/hearings/9drink.htm and http://www.adem.state.al.us/RegsPermit/PropRules/proprule.htm

New legislation passed this spring requires certain non-tank vessels and the Alaska Railroad to prepare contingency plans that demonstrate their ability to clean up an oil spill. Plans will be required of all self-propelled nontank vessels exceeding 400 gross registered tonnage operating in Alaskan waters and on the Alaska Railroad. The department will hold a meeting Sept. 12, 2001, the second in a series of scoping meetings, to discuss issues associated with the department's drafting of regulations to implement the law. The goal of these meetings is to assist the department in developing a formal public review draft of the proposed regulations by Nov. 15, 2001. It is expected that a draft will be released by the department in Jan. 2002 for formal public review, and that final regulations will become effective June 30, 2002. At that time, affected parties will have 180 days to comply with the new requirements. Workshop Nov. 13. See http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.C ONSERV/dec_cal.htm#agenda

Proposed Regulations-Oil and Gas Drilling and Testing Operations

DEC has proposed regulations exempting portable oil and gas drilling and testing operations from needing permits if they comply with a new "permit by rule." This is a supplemental notice adding to the notice of proposed changes that was issued on Nov. 21, 2000, and the supplemental notice of proposed changes issued on Feb. 22, 2001. This supplemental notice is being issued because although the fees associated with the project were outlined in the proposed regulations, the fees were not mentioned in either notice of proposed changes. DEC will be accepting comment only on the fee portion of the project. Comments were due Oct. 29. See http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/dec_cal.htm#exemptoilandgasdrilling

ARIZONA

Department of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Regulations-Hazardous Waste

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is amending the state's hazardous waste rules to incorporate the text of federal regulations for the purpose of obtaining reauthorization of the state's hazardous waste management program by U.S. EPA. The state's hazardous waste rules are generally comprised of the federal regulations authorized by Subtitle C of RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, which are incorporated by reference. The hazardous waste rules are well established and have been effective since 1984. This year's amendments cover changes in the federal regulations promulgated between July 2, 1999, and July 1, 2000. Hearing Nov. 14; comments due same date. See http://www.sosaz.com/aar/2001/39/contents.shtm

Air Quality Exceptional and Natural Events Policy

In Apr. 1999, the Air Quality Division finalized an Air Quality Exceptional and Natural Events Policy based on U.S. EPA guidance, "Areas Affected by PM10 Natural Events," and stakeholder input. The policy is applicable in areas that violate a PM10 NAAQS and the violation is shown to be the result of an exceptional or natural event such as unusually high winds or wildfires. The applicable air pollution control agency may utilize ADEQ's policy to develop a natural events action plan (NEAP) in lieu of becoming designated as a nonattainment area by EPA. The NEAP must contain documentation and analysis showing a causal relationship of the ambient air quality monitored exceedance(s) and the natural event, details of public notification and education programs, descriptions of best available control measures (BACM), and area of applicability for the BACM.

Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) (18 A.A.C. 9, Articles 9 and 10). This rulemaking establishes a state program, authorized by the legislature under H.B. 2426 in the 2001 legislative session, that governs all facilities that discharge pollutants from a point source into navigable waters (waters of the United States). The AZPDES program incorporates by reference certain Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.s) relating to the federal NPDES program, and revises certain C.F.R.s for clarity and to reflect conditions in the arid southwest environment. Draft rules available. See http://www.sosaz.com/aar/2001/26/docket.pdf

Air Quality-Proposed Regulations/Opening of Rulemaking Docket

San Manuel Copper Smelter (18 A.A.C. 2, Art. 7). The rule would propose source-requested reductions in emission limits applicable to a copper smelter that has been shut down and is considering resuming operation. See http://www.sosaz.com/aar/2001/26/docket.pdf

Regional Haze SIP development. ADEQ has been working with stakeholders to develop a revision to the SIP to address visibility impairment that may be caused by specific categories of stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 (40 C.F.R. §51.300-.307). The SIP will replace the federal implementation plan imposed by EPA in 1985 for this type of visibility impairment. A major component of the SIP is a rule that details the process that ADEQ will follow when a major industrial source is identified as a potential contributor to visibility impairment in a specific Class 1 area. Meetings scheduled through Nov. See http://www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/air/plan/haze.html

Public hearing at Magnolia Nov. 29 to receive comments on a third-party proposal by Albemarle Corporation to change the Arkansas Water Quality Standards (PC&E Commission Regulation No. 2) for two streams affected by Albemarle's wastewater discharge. The hearing will begin at 7:00 p.m. in Room 208 of the Business-Agribusiness Building on the campus of Southern Arkansas University at 100 Military Lane. Albemarle operates a bromine extraction facility, commonly referred to as the "West Plant," off U.S. Highway 371 about three miles west of Magnolia. The facility discharges wastewater to Dismukes Branch of Big Creek. The discharge consists of stormwater runoff, non-contact cooling water, treated sanitary wastewater, and boiler blow down from an artificial wetlands constructed as part of the plant's treatment system. Dismukes Branch of Big Creek flows into Big Creek, which, in turn, flows into Dorcheat Bayou. Regulation No. 2 designates both Dismukes Branch of Big Creek and Big Creek for domestic drinking water supply use, although neither stream currently is being used as a drinking water source. The Albemarle petition seeks to remove the domestic drinking water supply designation from Dismukes Branch of Big Creek, and from Big Creek, beginning with its confluence with Dismukes Branch and continuing to its confluence with Dorcheat Bayou. In addition, the petition seeks to change the current water quality standards for chlorides and total dissolved solids (TDS) for both streams. Under the proposal, the chloride standard in Dismukes Branch would be increased from 14 milligrams per liter (mg/l) to 26 mg/l, and the chloride standard for Big Creek would increase from 14 mg/l to 20 mg/l. The TDS standard in Dismukes Branch would increase from 123 mg/l to 157 mg/l, and the TDS standard for Big Creek would increase from 123 mg/l to 200 mg/l.

Application from the City of Fort Smith to evaluate a site for possible expansion of its Class 1 landfill, as well as creation of a Class 4 landfill and a yard waste composting facility. The intended expansion of the Class 1 landfill would accept nonhazardous municipal solid waste; the expansion to the Class 4 landfill would accept nonhazardous construction, demolition and other inert material; and the yard waste compost facility would process vegetative waste. The proposed 400-acre expansion site is located adjacent to theexisting city landfill at 5900 Commerce Road. Hearing Nov. 27 in Forth Smith.

CALIFORNIA

Air Resources Board

45-Day Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, §94006 - Defects Substantially Impairing the Effectiveness of Vapor Recovery Systems Used in Motor Fueling Operations

Hearing Nov. 15. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/vrdef01/vrdef01.htm. ARB is required to identify and list defects in the vapor recovery equipment that impair the effectiveness of the vapor recovery system in collecting the gasoline vapors. The list is contained in §94006, title 17, California Code of Regulations. Simply stated, the specified defects in the specified vapor recovery equipment components substantially increase emissions by not functioning as certified. Health and Safety Code §41960.2(c)(2) requires the ARB to periodically update the list contained in §94006 after reviewing the list at a public workshop. Previously, some of these equipment defects were listed in the individual executive orders. However, ARB staff believe that amending §94006 to include all of the defects in one regulatory document will enhance the ability of enforcement personnel and GDF operators to identify and repair those defects that could significantly impact the effectiveness of the vapor recovery system. When a component on the §94006 list is found by an inspector to contain a listed defect, the equipment must be removed from service until it has been replaced, repaired, or adjusted and reinspected by air pollution control district personnel (HSC §41960.2 (d)). If a component is not in good working order but does not contain a listed defect, the local air pollution control district has other enforcement options (HSC §41960.2(e)). Being on the list requires that the defective component be "tagged out" (removed from service).

45-Day Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Low-Emission Vehicle Regulations, including Particulate Standards for Gasoline Vehicles, More Stringent Emission Standards for Fuel-Fired Heaters, and Administrative Revisions

1. Establish a particulate matter (PM) standard for Otto-cycle vehicles. Currently, California requires only diesel vehicles to meet a PM emission standard, while U.S. EPA requires both diesel-cycle and Otto-cycle (gasoline) vehicles to meet a PM standard. While the health effects of PM emissions from gasoline vehicles have not been defined at this time, staff is proposing alignment with the federal standard to provide an additional measure of protection for public health. Therefore, staff is proposing that light- and medium-duty Otto-cycle vehicles be required to meet the same PM standard required for diesel-cycle vehicles to ensure that any new direct injection gasoline engines exhibit low PM emissions.

2. ZEV fuel-fired heater requirements. The emission requirements for fuel-fired heaters used in ZEVs were first adopted in the original LEV I program. At that time, they were required to certify to the most stringent emission standard available, the ULEV standard. With the adoption of the LEV II regulations, the most stringent exhaust emission standard became the SULEV standard, which is 75% cleaner than the ULEV standard. Since allowing fuel-fired heaters used by ZEVs to emit at a level greater than a partial zero-emission vehicles (PZEV) is inconsistent with the purpose of the ZEV program, staff is proposing that fuel-fired heaters certify to the SULEV standard. Furthermore, since fuel-fired heaters are not permitted to operate above 40F ambient temperature, manufacturers would be required to meet the emission standard at 40F rather than at 68F-86F as is now the case. The new standards would be effective beginning with model year 2005 to provide manufacturers with sufficient lead time to develop product plans.

3. PZEV Alternative Fuel Vehicle Standards. Currently, a natural gas or alcohol bi-fuel, flexible fuel, or dual-fuel vehicle may certify to two emission standards–the lower standard when operating on the alternative fuel and the next higher emission standard when operating on gasoline (e.g., the SULEV standard on compressed natural gas and ULEV on gasoline). As part of the LEV II rulemaking, the ZEV requirement was modified to allow a manufacturer to meet a portion of its ZEV obligation by producing extremely clean PZEVs. The granting of partial ZEV credits for PZEVs is premised on the assumption that PZEVs provide emission benefits beyond those achieved by vehicles certifying to the standard SULEV standard. Therefore, staff is proposing that any bi-fuel, flexible fuel, and dual-fuel vehicle that certifies to the PZEV standard must certify to the SULEV emission standard regardless of the fuel on which it is operated. If a manufacturer does not wish to earn partial ZEV credit from a bi-fuel, flexible fuel, or dual-fuel vehicle certifying to the SULEV standard, then the manufacturer would still be allowed to certify to the ULEV standard when operating on gasoline.

The proposed administrative amendments include:

1. Establishment of a non-methane organic gas (NMOG) certification factor. This proposal would allow a manufacturer to apply a factor of 1.04 to the measured non-methane hydrocarbons in lieu of measuring carbonyls when determining compliance with the NMOG standards for gasoline and diesel vehicles. A manufacturer using the factor would also be allowed to demonstrate compliance with the formaldehyde emission standard by including a statement of compliance in their application for certification. Similar to the federal requirements, the statement must be based on previous emission tests, development tests, or other appropriate data.

2. Extending the applicability of generic reactivity adjustment factors (RAFs). Compliance with the NMOG standard is determined by multiplying the measured NMOG emission level by the applicable RAF. The availability of RAFs, therefore, provides manufacturers with an incentive to produce clean alternative fuel vehicles. Manufacturers can use either the generic RAFs provided in the California light- and medium-duty vehicle test procedures, or generate their own test group specific RAFs. Currently, the RAFs contained in the California test procedures are effective only through the 2003 model year. Accordingly, staff is proposing to extend the generic RAFs indefinitely for alternative fuels. Beginning in the 2004 model year the generic RAF for gasoline–now 0.94–would be eliminated.

3. Revisions to the emission offset requirements for AB 965 vehicles. Recognizing that manufacturers may be required to limit product selection because of the stricter California emission standards, in 1981 the California legislature enacted a statute that allows manufacturers to introduce dirtier federal vehicles in California as long as their emissions are offset by cleaner California vehicles. In response to this directive, the Board adopted "Guidelines for Certification of 1983 and Subsequent Model-Year Federally Certified Light-Duty Motor Vehicles for Sale in California" (AB 965 Guidelines) in June 1982. The staff proposes amendments to these guidelines to calculate available emission credits based on each manufacturer’s fleet average NMOG level compared to the required fleet average NMOG level.

4. Implement additional intermediate in-use compliance standards. Even though a manufacturer must certify a vehicle to a set of 50,000 and 120,000 mile standards, the LEV II regulations establish slightly less stringent in-use standards for vehicles certifying to LEV II, ULEV II, and SULEV standards for the first three years that a new model is introduced. This was done to provide manufacturers with a temporary in-use compliance margin when they first introduce vehicles to the new standards. Currently, there are no intermediate in-use standards for light-duty trucks engineered for heavier duty cycles that have a base payload capacity of 2,500 lbs. or higher or for vehicles certified to the optional 150,000 mile standards for LEV, ULEV, or SULEV. Accordingly, staff is proposing that intermediate in-use standards be added for these emission categories, equal in stringency to the existing intermediate in-use standards for other emission categories.

5. Proposed revisions to the California NMOG test procedures. Because of innovations and advancements in the measurement of automotive exhaust, the NMOG test procedures have periodically been updated to reflect these improvements. The staff is proposing a number of additional technical revisions. The most notable proposed amendments would change the maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) values for the various organic compounds found in NMOG. The proposed new values reflect the new MIR values which the ARB recently adopted in a rulemaking on consumer products.

45-Day Notice of Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of a Regulation to Establish a Distributed Generation Certification Program

Hearing Nov. 15. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/dg01/dg01.htm. After Jan. 1, 2003, new electrical generation units to be sold, leased, or used in California, and that are exempt from district’s permit requirements, must be certified by the ARB to defined emission standards. The ARB staff will assist the manufacturers with determining exemption levels for each district. If a proposed unit is subject to the district’s permit requirements, it need not be certified by the ARB before it is sold, leased, or operated in that district. Equipment operating before Jan. 1, 2003, will not be subject to the proposed standards.

The proposed regulatory action also includes labeling requirements, testing procedures, record keeping requirements, recertification requirements, and payment of fees for technologies subject to the certification program. In accordance with Government Code §§11345.3(c) and 11346.5(a)(11), the ARB’s Executive Officer has found that the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the proposed regulation are necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the state. Lastly, the proposed regulatory action provides for the denial, suspension, or revocation of certificates and creates an administrative appeals process for review of denials, suspensions, or revocations of certificates issued under the program. The types of technologies that will be subject to the emission standards include microturbines, reformer-based fuel cells, small reciprocating engines, external combustion engines, or any combination thereof.

Clean Air Plan (CAP) Implementation Schedule

One of the goals of the CAP is to define the new state and federal measures needed to attain the federal one-hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin Valley and to identify strategies to achieve a portion of ARB's existing long-term commitment in the ozone SIP for the South Coast. The expected benefits from the strategies in the working draft of the CAP make further progress on the long-term obligations for South Coast, but fall far short of the reductions needed for the San Joaquin Valley. In response, ARB staff is reassessing potential emission reduction opportunities in all source categories through regulations, incentives, and voluntary programs. The release of the working draft of strategies identified has been delayed. The release date is uncertain. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/caplan/schedule.htm

Published in the California Regulatory Notice Register for 45-day public comment period on June 29, 2001. These regulations would implement the provisions of the Playground Safety and Recycling Act Grant Program relating to the award of grants to local public agencies and local public educational agencies to upgrade, repair, refurbish, install, or replace public playground facilities to prevent childhood injuries on public playgrounds while developing a market for recycled materials suitable for use in public playgrounds. The regulations will provide guidance to Board staff and to grant applicants in the administration of the grant program. Emergency Regulations for the Playground Safety and Recycling Act Grant Program, adopted by the Board at its Apr. 18-19, 2000, meeting have been extended and are currently in effect. Comments were due Aug. 13. See http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Rulemaking/Playground/

Board adopted emergency regulations for the transfer/processing of putrescible waste. Previous regulations provided that if an activity only receives material that has been separated for reuse prior to receipt, and the residual amount of solid waste in this material is less than 10% of the amount separated for reuse material received by weight, it is not subject to the Board’s transfer/processing operation and facility regulations. The emergency regulations clarify that all "putrescible waste" received as separated for reuse material counts toward the "residual" amount. Activities that receive materials with a residual amount equal to or greater than 10% will be subject to the Board’s transfer/processing operation and facility regulations. Following this action, the Board received feedback from parties concerned about the potential impacts of the emergency regulations. In response to the feedback, staff brought the regulations back to the Board for re-evaluation and discussion of the issues at its Apr. 24-25 meeting. The Board directed staff to make changes to the regulations and then submit to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) with a request for a delayed effective date (length to be determined) as an emergency rulemaking. Staff is currently preparing the file for submittal to the OAL. At its Sept. 11-12, 2002, meeting, the Board directed staff to initiate a 45-day public comment period. See http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Rulemaking/Putrescible/

Proposed Regulations-Waste Tires

The Board initiated a 45-day comment period to address revisions to the waste tire regulations. Assembly Bill (AB) 1843 established the waste tire program and required the Board to adopt emergency and final regulations for permitting of waste tire storage facilities. The Board adopted emergency regulations on June 26, 1991, and final regulations on Aug. 25, 1993. On May 9, 1996, the Board’s Waste Tire Hauler Regulations became effective pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 744. On Jan. 29, 1998, the Board adopted emergency regulations to remove certain exclusions from the regulations regarding who needs to acquire a waste tire facility permit. These emergency regulations became final this past year. AB 117 was signed into law in 1998 requiring the Board to prepare a report to the legislature on the current waste tire program and to make recommendations by June 30, 1999, for needed changes. The Board adopted the final version of the report "California Waste Tire Program Evaluation and Recommendations" (Tire Report) at its June 22, 1999, meeting. Since the passage of AB 1843 and SB 744, the Board has been regulating the storage, disposal, and hauling of waste tires. This last year SB 876 was passed by the legislature to make changes to the tire management statutes in order to better serve the regulated community and to protect public health and safety and the environment. The Board staff has proposed changes in the existing regulations to implement, interpret, and make specific the provisions of SB 876, as well as implementing certain recommendations from the AB 117 Tire Report. See http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/RuleArchive/2000/Exclusions/

These regulations set permitting and operational standards for hazardous waste disposal facilities that accept for disposal certain nonhazardous, nonputrescible, industrial solid wastes within a hazardous waste management unit. OAL approved emergency regulations July 31, 2000. The emergency regulations became effective on Oct. 1, 2000. OAL approved an extension through May 30, 2001. Board staff has initiated the process to adopt permanent regulations. The Board conducted a public workshop on Jan. 17, 2001, to discuss the proposed permanent regulations. At its Mar. 20-21, 2001, meeting the Board approved the proposed permanent regulations to be noticed for 45-day public comment period. The comment period runs from Sept. 28 through Nov. 12. A public hearing will be held Dec. 11. See http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Rulemaking/nonhaz/

Proposed Regulations-Compostable Materials

Placement of solid waste facilities and operations that handle compostable materials (green material--not composted, woody material--not composted) into regulatory tiers, development of minimum standards, and adjustment of existing regulations to accommodate the above placement. Public workshops in Sept. 1999 were focused on odor monitoring and enforcement at compostable materials handling sites, as well as on regulatory concepts for the revision of the composting regulations. From early July through early Aug. 2000, in eight venues throughout the state, the Board held workshops to discuss proposed changes to the regulations. Staff analyzed the information gathered at the workshops and revised the draft regulations accordingly. In Dec. 2000, Board staff solicited feedback from an external working group and in Jan. 2001, revised the regulations based on this feedback. The Board discussed issues related to this package at its Feb. 20-22, 2001, meeting. The Board considered approval of the regulations for a 45-day public comment period at its Aug. 14-15, 2001, meeting. See http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Rulemaking/Organics/. At the meeting, the Board directed staff to initiate a 45-day public comment period.

Proposed Regulations-LEA Grants

New regulations for the local enforcement agency (LEA) grants program. The Permitting and Enforcement Committee approved these draft regulations for public notice in Sept. 1997, however, LEA outreach staff workload forestalled the public notice period. The Board approved the regulations for a 45-day public comment period at its June 19-20, 2001, meeting. Comments due Nov. 27; public hearing Dec. 11. See http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Rulemaking/leagrant/

Draft Regulations-Construction & Demolition Materials

Placement of facilities and operations handling inert, construction, and demolition debris into regulatory tiers, and setting minimum standards. In Dec. 2000, the Board approved a two-phase approach to this rulemaking. Phase I will cover the transfer and processing of construction and demolition debris. Informal workshops for this Phase I are expected in summer 2001. Phase II will follow and will cover the disposal of construction, demolition, and inert debris. At the Aug. 14-15, 2001, meeting staff presented to the Board a proposed schedule with major milestones, as well as a copy of the initial draft proposed regulations for Phase I. Board and public input will be received during the agenda presentation. See http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Rulemaking/cdmater/

Objective of the proposed amendment is to include all applicable laboratory test methods, clarify by definitioncertain coating application methods and terminology, and propose limited exemption for electrocoatings. Hearing Nov. 9. See http://www.aqmd.gov/pub_edu/nph1107.html

Final Regulations-Amended Rule 1122--Solvent Degreasers

The amendments will reduce emissions of smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) some 3.2 tons per day when fully effective in 2006. (The rule reduces the maximum VOC content of solvents used from 50 grams/liter to 25 grams/liter.) The changes also will require use of airless/air-tight systems when using toxic solvents beginning in 2003, resulting in a toxic emissions reduction of 0.81 tons per day. SCAQMD staff will perform a technology assessment in 2005 to reaffirm the feasibility of the 2006 VOC limit for vapor degreasers. See http://www.aqmd.gov

Proposed Amended Rule 1162-Polyester Resin Operations

The proposed amended rule will reduce VOC emissions by approximately 5.4 tons per day through the implementation of Pollution Prevention (P2) technologies. P2 technologies include the use of the nonatomizing application technologies, reducing the monomer content of the resin materials and gel coats, and the use of fillers and vapor suppressants. PAR 1162 would implement control measure CTS-08 of the 1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone State Implementation Plan Revision. See http://www.aqmd.gov/pub_edu/nph1162.html Hearing Nov. 9.

Proposed Amended Rule 1309.1-Priority Reserve

The proposed amendment will provide electric generating facilities (EGFs) temporary access to the AQMD's Priority Reserve account for SO2 and CO credits to offset their emission increases. The proposed Rule will provide for a one time transfer of 750 pounds per day of SO2 and 6,000 pounds per day of CO credits to the Priority Reserve account from the AQMD's NSR account. The proposed rule also allows for a transfer of up to 1,500 pounds per day of PM-10 credits to the Priority Reserve in the event the balance falls below 500 pounds per day after a duly noticed Public Hearing. EGFs and facilities generating less than 10 megawatt’s ofelectricity for their own use will be allowed access to the Priority Reserve for SO2, CO and PM-10 credits for calendar years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 subject to specific requirements. Those requirements include facilities modifying all of their existing operations to BARCT for SO2 and CO, making a good faith effort to obtain Emission Reduction Credits from the open market, and paying the pollutant specific mitigation fee for each pound per day of credits obtained from the Priority Reserve. Hearing Nov. 9. See http://www.aqmd.gov/pub_edu/nph1309_1.html

Proposed Amended Rule 401-Visible Emissions

The proposed amendments to Rule 401 extend the effective dates for an opacity standard of Ringelmann 2 for charbroilers (excluding chain-driven charbroilers and those operating with controls) for a period of four years from the date of adoption. See http://www.aqmd.gov/pub_edu/nph401.html

Nov. 15 hearing to consider proposed revisions to Regulation No. 3, Part B, to implement the requirements of 1999 House Bill 1351 established requirements for managers of public lands to submit emission inventories for specified sources and activities that have an impact on federal Class I areas in Colorado. Federal land management agencies are required to provide such an inventory to the Commission by Dec. 31, 2001, and at least every five years thereafter. The inventory must include emissions from activities in Colorado and other states that may affect visibility in Colorado’s Class I areas. See http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/reg311-15.htm

Nov. 13 hearing regarding a proposal by the Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining Company to revise the pH standards for Arequa Gulch, segment 22a of the Upper Arkansas, in the Classifications and Numeric Standards for the Arkansas River Basin, Regulation #32 (5 CCR 1002-32). See http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/0111arequaph.pdf

Nov. 14, 9:00 a.m. Conference Room A, First Floor, Douglas Building, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee. This workshop will cover proposed amendments to sections of Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-210, 62-213, and 62-214, previously noticed for a workshop that was held Sept. 26. Among the topics to be discussed are updates to the application for air permit form for Title V sources (DEP Form No. 62-210.900(1)), allowing more than one responsible official to be designated for each Title V source, and amendments to the statement of compliance form (DEP Form No. 62-213.900(7)). A copy of the agenda may be obtained by contacting: Ms. Sandy Ladner, Department of Environmental Protection, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station #5500, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400, (850) 921-9551.

Proposed Regulations-Rules and Procedures for Coastal Construction and Excavation (Permits for Construction Seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line and Fifty-Foot Setback)

Proposed amendments will include revisions required by recent statutory changes.

Invasive Species-Agency Coordination Meeting

Nov. 7, 9:00 a.m., Florida State Turnbull Conference Center, Room 244, 555 West Pensacola Street, Tallahassee, FL. A meeting of state agencies in Florida to discuss the most effective way to develop a comprehensive plan that coordinates the responsibilities of the agencies to manage and prevent biological invasions. A copy of the agenda may be obtained by writing: William Torres, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of State Lands, Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, M.S. #705, Tallahassee, FL 32399.

Everglades Forever Act Implementation

Public meeting on rule development for the establishment of a phosphorus water quality criterion for the Everglades Protection Area pursuant to the Everglades Forever Act: Nov. 13 at 9:00 a.m. Crown Plaza Hotels and Resorts, 1601 Belvedere Road, West Palm Beach, FL, (561) 689-6400.

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Proposed Regulations-Environmental Resource Permits (Mining)

In 1996, the Governing Board initiated rulemaking to repeal Chapter 40D-45, F.A.C., Surface Water Management For Mining Materials Other Than Phosphate. During the repeal process, in 1999, the Legislature amended Section 120.536, F.S., requiring agencies to submit a list to the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee of the rules that the agencies had determined exceeded their rulemaking authority. The District listed Chapter 40D-45, F.A.C. in its entirety. Because no authorizing legislation was enacted by the 2000 Legislature, the District was again required to begin proceedings to repeal Chapter 40D-45, F.A.C. During this second repeal process district staff has been working with representatives of the mining industry to address some of their concerns regarding the regulation of mines under the environmental resource permitting (ERP) rules. District staff and the representatives of the mining interests have developed several proposed amendments of the ERP rules that address the industry’s concerns while ensuring consistency with the ERP rules as required by subsection 373.414(9), F.S. Staff has discussed the proposed revisions with the Florida DEP and the other water management districts. A public workshop will be scheduled.

GEORGIA

Department of Natural Resources, Envtl. Protection Division

Proposed NPDES Permits

NPDES PERMIT REISSUANCE

BRYAN COUNTY

City of Pembroke, Post Office Box 130, Pembroke, Georgia 31321, NPDES Permit No. GA0033588, for the water pollution control plant located on South Industrial Boulevard in Pembroke, Georgia. 0.15 MGD of treated wastewater is discharged to an unnamed tributary to Mill Creek tributary to the Ogeechee River in the Ogeechee River Basin.

BURKE COUNTY

City of Midville, Post Office Box 234, Midville, Georgia 30441, NPDES Permit No. GA0020028, for the water pollution control plant located on Madison Street in Midville. 0.167 MGD of treated wastewater is discharged to the Ogeechee River in the Ogeechee River Basin.

Cherokee County Board of Education, 110 Academy Street, Canton, Georgia 30114, for its: NPDES Permit No. GA0034959, Mountainbrook Center Water Pollution Control Plant located on Highway 140 in Waleska. 0.006 MGD of treated wastewater is discharged to an unnamed tributary to Moore’s Creek in the Coosa River Basin. NPDES Permit No. GA0034185, Free Home Elementary School Water Pollution Control Plant located on Highway 20, East & 372 in Free Home. 0.0105 MGD of treated wastewater is discharged to Buzzard Flapper Creek in the Coosa River Basin.

City of Sparta, Post Office Box H, Sparta, Georgia 31087, NPDES Permit No. GA0025593, for the water pollution control plant located on Johnny Britt Road in Sparta. 0.08 MGD of treated wastewater is discharged to an unnamed tributary to Buffalo Creek tributary in the Oconee River Basin. 0.36 MGD of treated wastewater is land applied to a site in the Oconee River Basin with an upgrade to 0.8 MGD. The permit is being modified to add storage pond monitoring.

City of Cartersville Water Department, Post Office Box 1390, Cartersville, Georgia 30120–Modification of NPDES Permit No. GA0024091, to approve a Sludge Management Plan (Sites 32-35) to land apply stabilized sewage sludge from the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant at four agricultural sites located in Bartow County on the Tilley property on Big Pond Road, on the Wade property on Euharlee Road, SW., on the Boss property on Boss Road, SW., and on the Brown property on Brown Loop Spur.

FLOYD COUNTY

City of Rome Water and Sewer Department, 212 Black Bluff Road, Rome, Georgia 30161-4610– Modification of NPDES Permit No. GA0024112, to approve a Sludge Management Plan Amendment (Site 5-Biddy Braden, Site 7 Sonny Mathis and Site 10 UGA Northwest Experiment Station) to land apply stabilized sewage sludge from the City of Rome’s Black Bluff Wastewater Treatment Plant at three agricultural sites located in Floyd County on the Braden property adjacent to U.S. Hwy 411/Ga. 20, on the Mathis property adjacent to Chulio Road and on the UGA Northwest Experimental Station property.

HALL COUNTY

City of Flowery Branch, Georgia, 30542, NPDES Permit No. GA0031933, for the water pollution control plant located on 5572 Atlanta Hwy South. Treated wastewater is discharged to Lake Sidney Lanier in the Chattahoochee River Basin. The permit is being modified to add limitations for an urban reuse system.

LOWNDES COUNTY

City of Valdosta, Post Office Box 1125, Valdosta, Georgia 31603-1022 Modification of NPDES Permit No. GA0033235, to approve a Sludge Management Plan to land apply stabilized sewage sludge from the City of Valdosta’s Withlacoochee River Water Pollution Control Plant. The sludge will be applied to a 226-acre site located off of Miller Bridge and Snake Nation Road in North Lowndes County.

SPALDING COUNTY

Springs Industries, Inc.–Griffin Finishing Plant, Post Office Drawer E. Griffin, Georgia 30224, NPDES Permit No. GA0003409, for its facility at 349 Railroad Avenue. The proposed permit includes changes to the copper and zinc effluent limitations and requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing. The State of Georgia has granted the facility a variance from chronic WET criteria. A biological stream survey will be performed in three years to asses future improvements in effluent quality. Two existing discharges enter Cabin Creek in the Ocmulgee River Basin.

Under the federal CWA, DEQ is required to analyze state waters to determine whether they meet state water quality standards. Based on a recent study of the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of the Boise River and current pollution control measures, DEQ is proposing to remove Blacks, Fivemile, Tenmile, Mason, and Sand Hollow Creeks from the list of impaired water bodies. The study determined that these creeks meet state water quality standards for nutrients, sediment, and dissolved oxygen. DEQ is also proposing to develop a management plan to control sediment in Indian Creek. DEQ’s study demonstrated that Indian Creek meets state water quality standards for nutrients and dissolved oxygen, but contains excess sediment. Comments due Nov. 30. See http://www2.state.id.us/deq/news/oct22_01b.htm

Groundwater-Draft Plan to address groundwater concerns in Twin Falls County

The PCB is considering a proposal by IEPA to update and clarify rules and to make some substantive changes to the Site Remediation Program (SRP). Hearings have been held concerning In the Matter of: Site Remediation Program: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 740 (R01-27). The Board is also considering a proposal submitted by Citizens for a Better Environment (R01-29), which has been consolidated with R01-027. In R01-27 there are two proposed substantive changes to the SRP. The first is establishment of "soil management zones" that would be used for on-site placement of contaminated soils for structural fill or land reclamation, consolidation of contaminated soils within the remediation site, and removal and re-deposit of contaminated soils following on-site treatment. The second change would require that chemical analyses of soil and groundwater samples be performed by accredited laboratories. In R01-29 the Citizens for a Better Environment are calling for additional public hearing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements on all SRP sites intended to be used as schools. The original proposal would have applied to all SRP sites intended to be used as a school, playground, or public park; however, it was amended following questions at the first public hearing. The Board tentatively plans to move these rulemakings to first notice in the coming months. See http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/RULES/R01-027/HearingRecords.htm and http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/RULES/R01-029/HearingRecords.htm.

In the Matter of: Proposed Regulated Recharge Area for Pleasant Valley Public Water District, Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 617–The Board July 26 adopted a final opinion and order in this rulemaking to amend the Board’s public water supply regulations to establish the first regulated recharge area under section 17.3 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/17.3 (2000)). See http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/Archive/dscgi/ds.py/GetRepr/File-14272/html

In the Matter of: Proposed Amendments to Tiered Approach to Corrective Action Objectives: 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742 (MTBE)–The Board July 26 adopted a final opinion and order in this matter to amend the standards for tiered approach to corrective action objectives (35 Ill. Adm. Code 742). On Sept. 6, the Board adopted a first notice opinion and order in this rulemaking. See http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/Archive/dscgi/ds.py/Get/File-14492

In the Matter of: Proposed MTBE Groundwater Quality Standards Amendments: 35 Ill. Adm. Code 620– Proposed Rule, First Notice, Opinion, and Order issued July 26. On Sept. 6, the Board adopted a first notice opinion and order in this rulemaking to amend the Board’s public water supply regulations. See http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/Meeting/agenda.htm

In the Matter of: Amendments to Livestock Waste Regulations: 35 Ill. Adm. Code 506–The Board on Sept. 6 adopted a second notice opinion and order in this rulemaking to amend the livestock waste regulations. The Part 506 amendments seek accomplish two objectives. First, the rules delete provisions from Part 506 that are now superseded by the Department of Agriculture's Part 900 rules. Several sections of Subparts A-C are deleted, and Subparts D-G are deleted in their entirety. The Board did not receive any comment regarding the deleted language; thus, those changes are not discussed in this opinion. Second, the rules establish or enhance new design and construction standards for livestock waste lagoons and livestock waste handling facilities other than lagoons (Subparts B and C). Subpart A sets forth general provisions applicable to Part 506. Section 506.101 refers to §§506.201 and 506.301 for the applicability of these amendments to new facilities, and requires the public to use Part 506 in conjunction with the Dept. of Agriculture’s Part 900 rules. Section 506.103 defines terms used in Part 506, and §506.104 lists the documents incorporated by reference into the proposal. The proposal prescribes procedures for requesting alternatives, modifications, and waivers to the new design and construction standards in §506.106. Subpart B establishes or enhances design and construction standards for livestock waste lagoons. These standards apply to designs not approved prior to the effective date of these amendments (§506.201). The site investigation requires determining the presence of aquifer material, and determining whether the lagoon will be located in a floodway, floodplain, or karst area (§506.202). Sections 506.204 and 506.205 specify lagoon design and liner standards. Groundwater monitoring requirements operate in conjunction with the Dept. of Agriculture’s Part 900 rules (§506.206). The proposal establishes new standards for constructing lagoons in karst and flood fringe areas (§§506.207, 506.208). Section 506.210 establishes new requirements for secondary containment features. Subpart C establishes design and construction standards for livestock waste handling facilities other than lagoons. These standards apply to designs not approved prior to the effective date of these amendments (§506.301). The site investigation requires determining the presence of aquifer material, and determining whether the livestock waste handling facility will be located in a floodway, floodplain, or karst area (§506.302). The proposal prescribes waste storage volume requirements in §506.303. Section 506.304 specifies general design and construction standards. Additional standards are established for concrete, metal, earthen material, synthetic material, and wooden material (§§506.305-506.309). The proposal includes new standards for constructing livestock waste handling facilities in areas with shallow aquifer material, flood fringe areas, and karst areas (§§506.310-506.312). Board adopted Second Notice 09/06/01; Rulemaking was scheduled for 10/16/01 JCAR meeting; Nov. 1 Board meeting. See http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/Archive/dscgi/ds.py/GetRepr/File-14449/html

In the Matter of: Petition of Rhodia, Inc. and Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary District for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208 and 304.105–The Board July 26 found the petition deficient in this request for an adjusted standard involving a Cook County facility, and ordered petitioner to file an amended petition to cure deficiencies no later than Sept. 14, 2001, or the petition would be subject to dismissal.

In the Matter of: Petition of Dixon Marquette Cement Company for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 811 & 814–The Board July 26 granted parties a motion for leave to file a response instanter and for extension of time to file a reply to the response.

Amends 326 IAC to change any incorporation by reference of the Federal Register to its citation published in the July 1, 2000, edition of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Amends 326 IAC 1-1-3 concerning references to the C.F.R. to update any references to the C.F.R. in Title 326 to mean the July 1, 2000, edition. Adds 326 IAC 1-1-3.5 and 326 IAC 1-2-20.5 to establish references to and definition of the Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors AP-42 and Supplements.

IDEM has developed draft rule language for a new rule to establish control limits for commercial and industrial solid waste incinerator units for which construction commenced on or before Nov. 30, 1999.

IDEM has developed draft rule language, on behalf of Union Tank Car Co. in Lake County, for amendments to 326 IAC 6-1-10.1, which would establish a new emission limit for particulate matter less than or equal to ten (10) micrometers (m), or PM10, for the grit blast operation.

IDEM has developed draft rule language for repeal of rule 326 IAC 11-5.

Proposed Regulations-Wastewater Management

IDEM has developed draft rule language for new rules concerning management of wastewater. Cleaning of sewage disposal systems, wastewater transportation, wastewater disposal, and related business activities are included in the scope of the draft rules. The new article, 327 IAC 7.1, will replace 327 IAC 7. The new rule language will allow the agency to meet the requirements of 40 C.F.R. pt. 503 and 40 C.F.R. pt. 257 subpt. A regarding the land application of wastewater. To reflect the new rules, IDEM will be repealing 327 IAC 7. See http://www.in.gov/legislative/register/Vol24/09Jun/11ID327970007.pdf

IDEM is soliciting public comment on amendments to rules for the application of biosolids, industrial waste products, and pollutant-bearing water in 327 IAC 6.1. The purpose of this rule change is to amend and clarify sections of the article that are creating problems for the regulated community and IDEM staff.

IDEM has developed draft rule language to amend rules concerning water quality standards by incorporating wetland water quality standards and to add a new article to establish procedures and criteria for reviewing federally permitted or licensed activities that require a water quality certification under §401 of the federal CWA. These activities include those regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under §404 of the CWA and by FERC, such as licenses for hydroelectric facilities. Also included in the new article are procedures and criteria for issuing a state surface water modification permit for wetlands not regulated under §401 of the CWA but that are, nonetheless, waters of the state.

Proposed Regulations-Solid, Hazardous Waste Management

Proposal amends and readopts under IC 13-14-9.5: 329 IAC 1-1, 329 IAC 12-2, and 329 IAC 13-3. This rulemaking is required pursuant to IC 13-14-9.5, which provides for the expiration and readoption of administrative rules. A rule that was adopted under a provision of IC 13 and was in effect on Dec. 31, 1995, expires not later than Jan.1, 2002. All rules adopted after that date under IC 13-14-9, with some exceptions listed in IC13-14-9.5-1, expire on Jan. 1 of the seventh year after the year in which each rule takes effect. The First Notice of Comment Period and Continuation of First Notice of Comment Period opened all rules required to be opened in Title 329 for readoption, regardless of their initial effective date. Other comments received were included and considered within other currently existing rulemakings. (See Summary/Response To Comments from the First Comment Period, 24 IR 169).

Comment requested regarding possible amendments to rules in 329 IAC 10 through 329 IAC 13 to remove references to industrial waste and special waste as required by Public Law 218-2001 (HEA 1830).

IDEM has developed draft rule language for amendments concerning hazardous waste staging. The amendments will address temporary staging at permitted hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities outside of the permitted storage areas, at storage areas subject to interim status requirements and recycling facilities under 40 C.F.R. §261.6(c)(2). For the last several years, staging has been addressed by state policy. IDEM recognizes that temporary staging is a necessary activity that is not currently reflected in the state rules. Current rules that are strictly interpreted do not allow this activity without a permit. Reliance on discretionary policies complicates enforcement and leaves the regulated community vulnerable to policy shifts or implementation inconsistency. A rule provides protection for the regulated community by allowing staging, by being consistent in implementation and not requiring a permit for storage.

Regulatory analysis of the proposed rule, prepared upon request, available at http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Rules/2001/Bulletin/ACB011017.html. DNR notes that "scrap metal processors are concerned that persons who are currently accepting discarded appliances and who are located next to bordering states that do not have similar rules will take the discarded appliances out of state rather than pay the costs to demanufacture them. This may be a legitimate concern, but experience in eastern Iowa, where there are several discarded appliance demanufacturers in operation who are basically in compliance with the proposed rules, shows that this is not the case. In one situation, appliances are coming into Iowa to be demanufactured. Once scrap dealers understand the proposed rules it is anticipated that more will become permitted discarded appliance demanufacturers. The proposed rules would have little impact on appliance service/repair shops. Such shops would not be required to have a discarded appliance demanufacturing permit unless the shop actually demanufactures appliances. Any appliances discarded by a service/repair shop would have to be properly demanufactured before they could be recycled. Shop owners may have to pay a fee to send discarded appliances to a permitted demanufacturing facility, but it would be expected that this cost would be passed on to the the person discarding the appliance. The proposed rules may impact appliance retailers. When a retail store delivers a new appliance, the store usually charges a fee that covers pickup of the old appliance. The appliance store may put the old appliance out on the dock in back for anyone to pick up for the scrap value. Since the proposed rules require discarded appliances to be demanufactured, it is unlikely that scrap metal dealers will continue to take discarded appliances for only the scrap value. Appliance retailers may have to pay a fee to discard an appliance. However, it is assumed the retailers will pass that cost on to the customer through the delivery and pickup fee. The proposed rules may have an impact on waste haulers who pick up discarded appliances from homeowners. Many haulers use mechanical means, such as a grapple, to pick up the appliance and place it into a truck. When the truck is full, it is taken to the drop–off location and the appliances are dumped out. Such handling can damage the appliance and cause a release of refrigerant, PCBs, or mercury into the environment or it may make the appliance difficult to demanufacture. The proposed rules prohibit haulers from using such practices; however, the proposed rules do not prohibit the use of mechanical means of handling discarded appliances and there may be a way to handle appliances mechanically that would not cause damage. There is also a concern that the proposed rules will result in more illegal dumping of discarded appliances because of the increase in the cost of handling the appliances. Experience at landfills that started charging or increased the fee for taking appliances shows that the number of appliances received after a change went into effect did not decrease. Experiences of other states that have similar rules show that a significant increase in illegal disposal of appliances is not likely."

Proposed Regulations-Hazardous Waste

Would amend Chapter 119, “Waste Oil,” Chapter 144, “Household Hazardous Materials,” Chapter 211, “Grants for Regional Collection Centers of Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators and Household Hazardous Wastes,” and Chapter 214, “Household Hazardous Materials Program,” and would rescind Chapter 210, “Grants for Solid Waste Comprehensive Planning,” and Chapter 212, “Loans for Waste Reduction and Recycling Projects,” Iowa Administrative Code. The rules to be amended describe limitations and programs designed to protect the public health and the environment by regulating disposal of household hazardous materials, and provide for collection of household hazardous materials, hazardous materials generated by conditionally exempt small quantity generators, and provision of educational materials to increase public awareness of household hazardous materials and proper management and disposal of such hazardous materials. Comments due Nov. 27; hearing same date. See http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Rules/2001/Bulletin/ACB011017.html

Proposed Regulations-Groundwater

Will amend Chapter 134, “Certification of Groundwater Professionals,” Iowa Administrative Code. Subrule 134.2(3) is being replaced and subrule 134.3(3) is being rescinded. These subrules were used to implement a transition period from the groundwater professional registration program to a certification process. Subrule 134.3(3) is no longer needed. Subrule 134.3(5) is being amended to clarify that 12 hours of continuing education are required during each 2–year certification period in order to receive recertification. The continuing education hours cannot be carried over to the next certification period. Subrule 134.2(3) is being changed to require professional engineers exempted from the certification examination to take the risk–based corrective action (RBCA) instruction course offered by the Department before certification is granted. Previously, the course was required in the first year of certification as part of the engineers’ continuing education. DNR believes attending the course prior to certification is needed to ensure acceptable work is performed from the beginning of certification. The Iowa RBCA procedures and software are not part of normal engineering training. Applicants who fail to pass the certification examination a second time will be required to complete a regular RBCA course of instruction before retaking the exam. Failing the exam the second time shows a need for a better understanding of the RBCA process. The purpose of certification is to have some assurance the person is competent to perform a RBCA investigation for the petroleum–contaminated site owner. Retaking the RBCA instruction course is required of applicants rather than allowing them to take the exam over and over again. Hearing Nov. 6; comments due Nov. 9. See http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Rules/2001/Bulletin/ACB011017.html

Proposed Regulations-Underground Storage Tanks

Will amend Chapter 135, “Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks,” Iowa Administrative Code. These amendments incorporate the changes made by 2001 Iowa Acts, House File 636, sections 1 and 2, effective July 1, 2001. 2001 Iowa Acts, House File 636, removed the requirement for the person depositing a regulated substance in an unregistered UST to notify the owners or operators of their duty to register tanks. Also, the person is not required to report the unregistered tank to DNR or provide the owner or operator with a tank registration form. However, it still remains unlawful for both the depositor and the person accepting the regulated substance to deposit a regulated substance into tanks that have not been registered and issued permanent or annual tank tags. 2001 Iowa Acts, House File 636, makes it unlawful for a person to deposit a regulated substance in a UST after being notified by DNR that the tank is not covered by an approved form of financial responsibility such as insurance. Item 2 incorporates this requirement. The depositor and person accepting the substance remain subject to fines and penalties for depositing a regulated substance under these conditions. The $25 additional registration fee for failing to register a tank has been increased to $250. Also, the additional $250 fee now applies for failure to obtain annual tank tags. A major change is the requirement for a person who installs USTs and the owner or operator to notify DNR in writing of the intent to install a tank. A person selling, installing, modifying, or repairing a tank used or intended to be used as a UST now must notify both the purchaser and owner or operator of the tank of the tank registration requirements. 2001 Iowa Acts, House File 636, section 2, gives DNR authority to deny registration and annual tank tags for USTs for which the owner or operator has not provided proof of financial responsibility coverage to DNR. Item 3 of these amendments requires owners and operators to provide such proof as a condition of receipt of tank registration and annual tank management fee tags without which the owners and operators cannot lawfully obtain products. The amendments provide DNR authority to give written authorization to fill untagged USTs for purposes of testing the tanks or when there is a delay in getting tank tags to the owner or operator. Hearing Nov. 6; comments due Nov. 9. See http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Rules/2001/Bulletin/ACB011017.html

The purpose of this rulemaking is to establish a definition of certain air emission units as “small units” and list those emission units as being exempt from the requirement to obtain an air construction permit. The rulemaking also establishes a definition of “indoor units” for which no air construction permits are required. The proposal is the result of a negotiated rulemaking process between DNR and representatives of the Iowa Association of Business and Industry (ABI). Hearing Nov. 26; comments due Nov. 30. See http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Rules/2001/Bulletin/ACB011017.html

Proposed amendments to amend Chapter 22, “Controlling Pollution,” Iowa Administrative Code. Item 1 seeks to revise the deadline for which an application for a significant modification of a Title V permit is due. Currently, subparagraph 22.105(1)“a”(4) requires an application at least 6 months prior to any planned significant modification of a Title V permit. While 40 C.F.R. Part 70 does not specifically address a deadline for significant modification application, Subpart 70.5(a)(1)(ii) states that a complete application to obtain a Title V permit or permit revision is required within 12 months after commencing operation or on or before such earlier date as the permitting authority may establish. This rulemaking seeks to change the deadline for application submittal to no later than 3 months after commencing operation of the changed source. DNR has received two requests from the regulated public that this subparagraph be revised or deleted. This rulemaking is an attempt to address concerns over permit timing issues. Three months is considered adequate time to prepare an application for modification of a Title V permit so that the permit remains consistent with current operations at the facility. Item 2 reiterates the deadline for which an application for a significant modification of a Title V permit is due. New subrule 22.113(4) is intended to make clear when the application for a significant modification is due. Hearing Nov. 15; comments due Nov. 30. See http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Rules/2001/Bulletin/ACB011017.html

Final Regulations-Water Quality

The amendments as adopted by the EPC on Aug. 20 establish the Class A (primary contact recreation) use designations for eight waterbodies or waterbody segments; establish a Class C (drinking water supply) use designation for Mystic Reservoir (Appanoose County); and establish numerical criteria for endosulfan, bromoform, chlorodibromomethane, chloroform, and dichlorobromomethane. Comments were received from 36 persons and organizations and a petition was received with 48 signatures. One respondent, the Iowa Environmental Council, endorsed all the changes while the remainder objected to one or more changes. Most objected to the removal of the drainage ditch maintenance exemption to the antidegradation policy. The only difference between the adopted amendments and the proposed amendments as published for comment is the proposed change to the antidegradation policy. The Commission did not take any action to remove, as proposed, or to otherwise revise a provision in the antidegradation policy that exempts the repair and maintenance of drainage district ditches from the policy. The Commission directed Department staff to have the Water Quality Standards Technical Advisory Committee address this provision and make recommendations for future rule revisions. These amendments are intended to implement Iowa Code chapter 455B, division III, part 1 and became effective Oct. 24. See http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Rules/2001/Bulletin/ACB010919.html

Amends Chapter 102, “Permits,” Iowa Administrative Code. This amendment implements Iowa Code §455B.306(6)“d” to require sanitary disposal projects to file an Emergency Response and Remedial ActionPlan (ERRAP) in conjunction with the issuance, renewal, or reissuance of a permit for a sanitary disposal project. That provision of the Iowa Code had not been previously implemented. The amendment adopts new rule 102.16(455B), which provides guidance and direction on development of an ERRAP. The technical committee of the Iowa Society of Solid Waste Operations (ISOSWO) provided assistance in development of the rule. Effective Oct. 24. See http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Rules/2001/Bulletin/ACB010919.html

Ch. 691, Amendment To Rules For Underground Oil Storage Facilities: Siting Restrictions For New Facilities. This rule amendment would establish restrictions on the siting of future underground oil storage tank facilities on mapped significant sand and gravel aquifers, and thereby reduce the risk of costly discharges of oil to these geologically sensitive locations and important future sources of public drinking water. The proposed amendment prohibits the siting of new underground oil storage facilities on significant sand and gravel aquifers mapped by the Maine Geological Survey. Exempt from the rule are on-site consumptive use heating oil facilities, replacement tanks and facilities and the conversion of aboveground oil storage facilities to underground facilities. Variances from the prohibition are available from the Commissioner, upon application, for sites where their potential as a future drinking water supply resource are low because of low yield or existing pollution, or only of moderate yield. New facilities on high potential public drinking water supply aquifers are prohibited. Hearing Nov. 15; comments due Nov. 27. See http://www.state.me.us/sos/cec/rcn/apa/notices/102401.htm

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

DEP is proposing to amend Ch. 127 to reflect changes to the California LEV II program to include heavy-duty diesel new engine standards for vehicles having a gross manufacturer's weight over 14,000 pounds. This amended rule would add standards for new diesel engines referred to as Not-To-Exceed (NTE) and Euro III European Stationary Cycle (ESC) emission test procedures for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines. In addition, the Department is proposing to adopt the latest California heavy-duty gasoline engine standards that align certain California standards with the more recent Tier 2 federal standards. Some of these include setting a NOx fleet average requirement rather than a non-methane Organic Gas (NMOG) fleet average. Hearing was Nov. 1; comments due Nov. 13. See http://www.state.me.us/sos/cec/rcn/apa/notices/101001.htm

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality

Ch. 585, Dissolved Oxygen Requirements for Rivers and Streams. This rule does three things. First, it adopts federally required dissolved oxygen criteria for the support of indigenous fish. Second, the rule clarifies the procedures for identifying and designating fish spawning areas in the wastewater discharge licensing process. Third, the rule specifies that compliance with dissolved oxygen levels will not be measured in the bottom waters of certain riverine impoundments. Upon adoption, the proposed rule will repeal and replace the existing Ch. 585 rule titled "Identification of Fish Spawning Areas and Designation of Salmonid Spawning Areas." Hearing was Nov. 1; comments due Nov. 30. See http://www.state.me.us/sos/cec/rcn/apa/notices/101001.htm

Final Regulations-Air Quality

Ch. 519, Interim Effluent Limitations and Controls for the Discharge of Mercury. Originally approved in Feb. 2000, Ch. 519 establishes procedures for setting interim effluent limits and controls for the discharge of mercury to surface waters of the state. Consistent with provisions of law applicable at the time, the original Ch. 519 expired on Oct. 1, 2001. A change in the law enacted by the 120th Legislature continues the need for interim controls for mercury after Oct. 1. Consistent with the new law, an amendment to Ch. 519, adopted on Sept. 6, 2001, eliminates the sunset provision from the original rule. Effective Oct. 6.

Chapter 145, NOx Control Program. This new rule requires affected sources to install selective non-catalytic reduction or a control technology determined by the Board to achieve essentially equivalent NOx reductions on each unit by May 1, 2003. In addition to a control technology requirement, the rule establishes interim emission limitations for the period from June 15, 2003, through Dec. 30, 2004, and final emission limitations thereafter. The final emission limitations, which become effective on Jan. 1, 2005, require electric generating units with a maximum heat input capacity of less than 750 million Btu per hour to meet a 0.22 lb./mm Btu emission limit. Electric generating units with a maximum heat input capacity of 750 million Btu per hour or greater must meet a 0.15 lb./mm Btu emission limit. Finally, indirect heat exchangers, primary boilers, and resource recovery units with a maximum heat input capacity greater than 250 million Btu per hour must continue to meet the 0.20 lb./mm Btu emission limit. The rule also establishes provisions for an alternative emission limitation in the event a source cannot achieve the final emission limitations after installing and optimizing an approved control technology. Any source seeking an alternative emission limitation must apply to the Board before the Jan. 1, 2005, final emission limitation deadline, and has the burden of proof in demonstrating that achieving the final emission limitations is technically infeasible. Effective July 22.

On July 5, 2001, the Board of Environmental Protection adopted amendments to the following federal regulations by reference: Ch. 143, new source performance standards (NSPS) and Ch. 144, national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs). The chapters are applicable statewide. The CAA Amendments of 1990 offer states the option of accepting delegation for NSPS and NESHAPs for incorporation into the states regulatory programs to reduce dual regulatory reporting requirements on industry and streamline the air emission licensing processes. All standards are implemented through the air emission licensing process. Through this action, the DEP has incorporated additional source categories of NSPS and NESHAPs that have been delegated to the state since the 1970s as well as the newer NESHAP requirements, in accordance with the Maine Administrative Procedure Act process, to ensure the state has full implementation and enforcement authority through the state's Title V licensing process. The promulgated chapters incorporate standards for a variety of air emissions source categories (both large and small businesses) that are subject to the federal standards. Effective Sept. 2. See http://www.state.me.us/sos/cec/rcn/apa/notices/090501.htm

Ch. 100, Definitions Regulation (Amendments); Ch. 115, Major and Minor Source Air Emission License Regulations (Amendments); Ch. 140, Part 70 Air Emission License Regulations (Amendments). The Department has amended Ch. 100, 115, and 140 of the Department's regulations to address remaining requirements for federal approval of Maine's Title V Operating Permit Program. These changes include enhancing EPA and public participation review process for minor license revisions, incorporating provisions in Ch. 140 whereby a facility may make changes with a simple 7-day advance notice if the changes do not result in an increase in emissions, removing certain activities from the list of insignificant (exempt) activities contained in Appendix B to Ch. 115 and Ch. 140, incorporating the latest federal air quality modeling requirements, and amending the Ch. 100 definitions to include definitions consistent with federal requirements for the construction or reconstruction of hazardous air pollutant sources and maximum available control technology determinations. The amendments also establish provisions in Ch. 115 and Ch. 140 requiring an applicant to notify federal land managers of all major modifications or new major source license applications and provide at least 30 days for comment. Effective Sept. 22.

To ensure consistency between regulatory programs, the proposed rule eliminates the discrepancies between gravel pit performance standards. Specifically, the rule repeals the gravel pit buffer standards required under the Site Location Law and replaces them with the buffer standards contained in the Performance Standards for Excavations, 38 MRSA §490-D. Effective Sept. 22.

MARYLAND

Department of the Environment

Water Supply Program (WSP)-Proposed Update of Source Water Assessment Plan

Nov. 13 hearing on proposed amendments to 310 CMR 7.40, The Massachusetts Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program. The purpose of the public hearing is to solicit comments on the proposed amendments to 310 CMR 7.40, which would require "Not-to-Exceed" (NTE) testing and California certification of all new model year 2005 and subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engines prior to being sold or registered in Massachusetts. The proposed amendments to 310 CMR 7.40 would also align the Massachusetts LEV program with recent revisions to the California LEV program regulations (Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations). See http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/daqc/files/lev/hearing.htm and http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/daqc/daqcpubs.htm#lev

Draft guidelines available at http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/dswm/files/c&dguid.htm. The purpose of this document is to clarify the closure provisions of 310 CMR 19.000 by providing guidance on the procedures and criteria the Department will use when reviewing requests to close inactive unlined landfills where use of alternative grading and shaping materials is proposed. Specifically, these guidelines address permitting requirements and evaluation procedures for determining the types and quantities of materials used during closure and the length of time for closure activities.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is relocating in downtown Lansing. Starting Nov. 6 and ending Feb.14, 2002, all of the various DEQ divisions will relocate their administrative offices in phases to one new location at 525 W. Allegan Street in downtown Lansing. The new building will be called "Constitution Hall"–it sits on the site where the state’s 1963 Constitution was drafted. Approximately 920 DEQ employees will have their offices there. All telephone numbers, including fax numbers, will remain the same except for: (a) Geological Survey and (b) Drinking Water and Radiological Protection, which will receive new telephone and fax numbers. For mailing purposes, specific Post Office Box numbers will remain the same.

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

DEQ intends to formally adopt proposed revisions to the air pollution control rules (ORR 1998-036EQ) revising R 336.1210 through R 336.1215 and R 336.1299. These proposed rules include changes intended to address outstanding regulatory issues identified in the U.S. EPA’s Title V Interim Approval notice for Michigan’s Renewable Operating Permit Program. The proposed rules also include several provisions intended to increase operational flexibility at a permitted facility. See http://www.deq.state.mi.us/aqd/rules/rules.html. Following formal adoption, the rules will be submitted to the Office of Regulatory Reform and the Secretary of State. The proposed rules will take effect seven days after filing with the Secretary of State.

DEQ intends to develop a proposed revision to the air pollution control rules (ORR 2001-059EQ). The proposed amendments to R 336.1101, R 336.1105, and R 336.1113 define the words used in the proposed new rules for start-ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions that are being processed in ORR 2001-040EQ. The remainder of the changes are to bring the Part 1, General Provisions, of the Air Pollution Control Rules up to date with existing statutes and executive orders.

The Department intends to develop a proposed revision to the Air Pollution Control Rules (ORR 2001-072EQ). The proposed amendment to R336.1122(f) for the definition of volatile organic compound will delete references to photochemical reactivity and vapor pressure of materials in surface coatings to make the definition as stringent as the federal definition. Information Contact: Jerald Trautman, Air Quality Division, 517-335-4855, or E-mail at trautmaj@state.mi.us.

DEQ intends to formally adopt proposed revisions to the air pollution control rules (ORR 2001-001EQ) rescinding R 336.1913 and R 336.1914. This rescission is being proposed because the start-up, shutdown, and malfunction rules are not acceptable to the U.S. EPA and prevent EPA's approval of Michigan's Renewable Operating Permit Program. The proposed rescission can be viewed at http: www.deq.state.mi.us/aqd/rules/proposed%20Amendments.htm. Copies of the proposed rescission may also be obtained by contacting the Air Quality Division, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 106 West Allegan Street, P.O. Box 30260, Lansing, Michigan 48909-7760. Following formal adoption, the rescission will be submitted to the Office of Regulatory Reform and the Secretary of State. The proposed rescission will take effect seven days after filing with the Secretary of State.

Final Regulations-Oil Spills

Part 5, Spillage of Oil and Polluting Materials, administrative rules. The Office of Regulatory Reform filed the rules, denoted by ORR 1996-161EQ, with the Office of the Great Seal on Aug. 23, 2001, and the rules are effective as of Aug. 31, 2001. The rules are available via the Waste Management Division’s web page at www.deq.state.mi.us/wmd or directly from the Waste Management Division’s Lansing Office.

MPCA is planning to amend parts of Minnesota Rules Chapters 7001 and 7035 that govern management of solid waste transfer facilities, demolition debris land disposal facilities, and industrial solid waste land disposal facilities. The rules will also be modified to include requirements for utilization of solid waste. Revisions will not affect standards for mixed municipal solid waste land disposal facilities or financial assurance. The current solid waste rules have been in effect since 1982. Since then, solid waste processing and management activities have changed, making parts of the rule obsolete and not as effective as they could be. Some goals of this rule revision include: Update the rule to coincide with current solid waste management practices. Eliminate rule requirements that are redundant or no longer needed. Remove loopholes in the rule that make MPCA enforcement difficult or time consuming. Streamline processes to enable MPCA staff to concentrate theirefforts on areas of greatest environmental concern. A draft rule is not available for review at this time. See http://www.comm.media.state.mn.us/bookstore/stateregister/2619.pdf

Tentative Schedule for Rule Revisions: Obtain input from interested parties, November 2001 throughFebruary 2002; Draft rule March 2002 through July 2002; Public notice proposed rule August 2002; Respond to comments/hold hearing if required/make revisions as needed, September 2002 throughDecember 2002; Finalize rule December 2002. MPCA will host stakeholder meetings Nov. 14, 28, and 29 and Dec. 4 in Bemidji, St. Cloud, St. Paul, and Mankato. See http://www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/swrules.html#proposals

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

Planned New Rules Governing the Sale of Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines to be Codified in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7023. Comments through Nov. 23. MPCA is considering adopting rules promulgated by the state of California that require more stringent testing procedures for heavy-duty diesel engines beginning with the 2005 model year. The MPCA is considering proposing to (1) require that all heavy-duty diesel engines sold in Minnesota are certified as complying with applicable exhaust emissions standards under Title 13, section 1956.8 of the California Code of Regulations for engines manufactured in model years 2005 and 2006; and (2) establish requirements for vehicle registration and transactions for heavy-duty diesel engines in model years 2005 and 2006. On Dec. 8, 2000, the California Air Board adopted rules governing the test procedures used to certify HDDEs sold in California, beginning in model year 2005. The test procedures adopted in the CARB rules are the “Not-To-Exceed” test and the “Euro III Stationary Cycle” test. These test procedures are broader and more closely reflect actual driving conditions than the current federal test procedure for HDDEs used by U.S. EPA. The MPCA is considering adopting the CARB’s rules for model years 2005 and 2006 to close the gap between the use of new test procedures under the consent agreement and their use under EPA rules in 2007. See http://statsbox.pca.state.mn.us/pca/news/newsRelease.cfm?NR=3015&type=1

10 CSR 10-6.110 (entire state) (fees). The Department’s Air Pollution Control Program emission fee revenue has been less than expenditures since emission year 1997 (emissions during calendar year 1997 and fees payable April 1, 1998 as compared to expenses for state fiscal year starting July 1, 1998). Since that time, the fund balance accumulated prior to 1997 has been used to supplement emission fee revenue. Revenues due April 1, 2001 were $500,000 less than projected in last year’s analysis. Fringe benefits cost increased more than projected last year. Last year’s projections used 26.5% as the fringe benefit rate while this year’s projections used 33.7% because of increases in health care insurance cost. The existing fund balance is rapidly being depleted. The Air Pollution Control Program had estimated that emission fees payable April 1, 2001 would be $7.4 million. Actual receipts were only $6.9 million or $500,000 less than projected. Fund projections were shared with representatives of industry in a meeting on May 30, 2001. The Air Pollution Control Program obtained input from industry and restated the financial projections from a state fiscal year basis to an emission year basis. The revised analysis was then shared with the industry group in a second meeting on June 19 and later shared with the Small Business Compliance Advisory Committee on June 28. The Air Pollution Control Program needs to transition from an emission fee supplemented by a fund balance to an emission fee sufficient to cover expenses. The options presented by the Air Pollution Control Program to the Missouri Air Conservation Commission on August 3, 2001 were raise the fee for 2001 to phase in the increase in the fee or wait and raise the fee for 2002 more dramatically. As a result of comments, the Air Pollution Control Program is recommending that the fee not be increased for emissions in calendar year 2001 but remain at $25.70 per ton for 2001. However, the department’s Air Pollution Control Program expects that the fee for calendar year 2002 will need to be significantly increased. This approach has been thoroughly covered in the fee analysis and it is industry’s preference not to phase in fee increases but to postpone any fee increase until next year. The Air Pollution Control Program will continue to work with industry and others to implement efficiencies. The Air Pollution Control Program will consider these improvements in the next fee analysis. See http://mosl.sos.state.mo.us/moreg/2001/v26n21/v26n21c.pdf

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

10 CSR 10-5.300 Control of Emissions From Solvent Metal Cleaning (St. Louis area). The commission proposes to amend section (2) and subsection (3)(B), add new subsection (3)(C) that includes original sections (4) and (5), add new subsection (3)(D) that includes original section (6), amend sections (4) and (5), and delete sections (7) and (8). If the commission adopts this rule action, it will be submitted to U.S. EPA to replace the current rule in the Missouri SIP. This rule amendment will exempt paint spray gun cleaning except remote open top paint spray gun cleaning machines. All remote paint spray gun cleaning machines will be required to be operated per the manufacturer’s operating instructions and to be closed or covered when not in use to help eliminate fugitive emissions. The evidence supporting the need for this proposed rulemaking, per section 536.016, RSMo, is correspondence from industry that resulted in this change. Hearing Dec. 6; comments due Dec. 13. See http://mosl.sos.state.mo.us/moreg/2001/v26n20/v26n20b.pdf

10 CSR 10-6.060 Construction Permits Required and 10-6.065. The commission proposes to amend subsection (1)(B) and amend subsection (1)(D). If the commission adopts this rule action, it will be submitted to U.S. EPA to replace the current rule in the Missouri SIP. This amendment provides an exemption for non-commercial incinerators recommended by the University of Missouri extension service for disposal of dead animals and removes the reference to asphaltic concrete plants from the applicability section of the rule. The evidence supporting the need for this proposed rulemaking, per section 536.016, RSMo, is the May 28, 2000, memorandum from the Missouri Attorney General’s Office identifying the discrepancies between state statute requirements and state permit rule requirements. Hearing Dec. 6; comments due Dec. 13. See http://mosl.sos.state.mo.us/moreg/2001/v26n20/v26n20b.pdf

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality

Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs), 10 CSR 20-15.010 Applicability and Definitions et seq. The Missouri Clean Water Commission is responsible for adopting rules necessary to prevent, control, and abate potential discharge of contaminants to the waters of the state. Releases of petroleum and other regulated substances from ASTs and associated piping, primarily from ASTs located at service stations, marinas, bulk plants, and fleet fueling facilities, have been documented throughout the state. While the applicable Department of Agriculture regulations focus on prevention of such releases, there are currently no specific requirements for release response measures that must be taken to protect the environment and the waters of the state. The commission has determined release response measures to be necessary because, once a release has occurred, the nature of the contaminants is such that, without appropriate release response measures, there is a substantial threat that the discharged contaminants will pollute the waters of the state. The intent of the release response measures required by the rules in this chapter is to prevent any discharged contaminants from polluting the waters of the state. This rule specifies which ASTs must comply with the technical requirements set forth in this chapter and defines specific words used in this chapter so that the meaning of these terms, and their application in the rules of this chapter, is easily understood. Hearing Nov. 28; comments due Dec. 5. See http://mosl.sos.state.mo.us/moreg/2001/v26n20/v26n20b.pdf

10 CSR 20-6.200 Storm Water Regulations. The commission proposes to amend sections (1)–(5). U.S. EPA promulgated rules effective Nov. 1999 requiring storm water permits on construction sites between one (1) and five (5) acres in size and on municipal storm water sewer systems in urbanized areas serving populations of less than one hundred thousand (100,000). The federal rule also allows for permit exemptions on industrial facilities, which protect their operations from storm water. Missouri must develop a Phase II program and issue permits within three (3) years of the final federal rule. This amendment will expand these rules to include a broader group of activities. The evidence supporting this proposed rulemaking per section 536.016, RSMo, lies in the federal rule that mandates this amendment in delegated, state storm water programs. Hearing Nov. 28; comments due Dec. 5. See http://mosl.sos.state.mo.us/moreg/2001/v26n20/v26n20b.pdf

Proposed Regulations-Drinking Water Quality

Division 60-Public Drinking Water Program; 10 CSR 60-7.020 Reporting Requirements for Lead and Copper Monitoring; 10 CSR 60-10.040 Prohibition of Lead Pipes, Lead Pipe Fittings, and Lead Solder and Flux; 10 CSR 60-15.020 Applicability of Corrosion Control Treatment Steps to Small, Medium-Size, and Large Water Systems; 10 CSR 60-15.030 Description of Corrosion Control Treatment Requirements; 10 CSR 60-15.050 Lead Service Line Replacement Requirements; 10 CSR 60-15.060 Public Education and Supplemental Monitoring Requirements; 10 CSR 60-15.070 Monitoring Requirements for Lead and Copper in Tap Water; 10 CSR 60-15.080 Monitoring Requirements for Water Quality Parameters; 10 CSR 60-15.090 Monitoring Requirements for Lead and Copper in Source Water. This amendment adopts changes to the federal rules published in the Jan. 12, 2000, and June 30, 1994, Federal Registers. These changes are required in order to maintain delegation of the federal program. Public hearing was Oct. 17; comments due Nov. 15. See http://mosl.sos.state.mo.us/moreg/2001/v26n18/v26n18b.pdf

10 CSR 60-13.010 Grants for Public Water Supply Districts and Small Municipal Water Supply Systems. DNR has added criteria for providing grants for source water protection under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). Applicants for this funding must have a Department-approved source water protection program. It adopts criteria for making grant money available for rental enhancement grant payments under the CREP. These grants will help local political subdivisions provide better protection of source water used for public drinking water. The grants will be used to compensate farmers for taking agricultural land out of production in critical source water protection areas. This will protect public health, safety, and welfare by decreasing sediment, nutrient, and pesticide run-off into water sources used for public drinking water purposes. Money is available for CREP grants in state fiscal year 2001. This emergency amendment is necessary to use the money available for this purpose this fiscal year. See http://mosl.sos.state.mo.us/moreg/2001/v26n12/v26n12a.pdf

Were approved at Sept. 18 hearing. Petitions 2001-02, 2001-03, 2001-04, 2001-05, 2001-06, and 2001-07 were previously adopted as temporary regulations by the Environmental Commission on Dec. 5, 2000, or on May 10, 2001. These temporary regulations expire Nov. 1, 2001, and were before the Commission for permanent adoption.

Petition 2001-02 (LCB R-037-01) permanently amends NAC 444.842 to 444.960, the hazardous waste regulations. See http://ndep.state.nv.us/sec/p2001-02.pdf The amended regulations update the state's adoption of federal regulations by reference by amending NAC 444.8427, 444.84275, 444.850, and 444.9452 to refer to the federal regulations as they existed on July 1, 2001, and modify 444.8632 to adopt 40 C.F.R. Parts 2, Subpart A, 124, Subparts A and B, Parts 260 to 270, and Part 279 as those parts existed on July 1, 2001.

Petition 2001-03 (LCB R-038-01) permanently amends NAC 444A.005 to 444A.470 to extend programs for separating, at the source, recyclable material from other solid waste to include public buildings in counties with populations greater than 100,000. See http://ndep.state.nv.us/sec/p2001-03.pdf The amended regulations add for public buildings the minimum standards that were previously established for the source separation of recyclables at residential premises. Definitions for public building, paper and paper product are added. NAC 444A.120 was amended to add public buildings and 444A.130 was amended to provide for a municipality to make available a source separation of recyclable materials at public buildings.

Petition 2001-04 (LCB R-039-01) permanently amends NAC 444A. The proposed permanent regulation prescribes the paper and paper product recycling procedures for state agencies. See http://ndep.state.nv.us/sec/p2001-04.pdf The regulation provides criteria for exemption from the recycling requirements, provides for clearly labeled containers, establishes reporting criteria by state agencies, and requires a building recycling plan to be submitted to the Division of Environmental Protection.

Petition 2001-05 (LCB R-040-01) permanently amends NAC 445B.001 to 445B.395, the state air pollution control permitting program. The proposed permanent regulation amends NAC 445B by creating and defining a new classification of operating permits. See http://ndep.state.nv.us/sec/p2001-05.pdf The new Class III permit will provide eligible sources (those emitting 5 tons or less of specific pollutants) a streamlined permitting process, which includes accelerated permit review and issuance and lower permitting fees. This regulation will provide regulatory relief for small quantity sources. NAC 445B.320, dealing with operating permit changes is amended to include additional language to require a detailed description of how increases and decreases will comply with the permit.

Petition 2001-06 (LCB R-041-01) permanently amends NAC 459.952 to 459.95528, the chemical accident prevention program. The regulation adds new provisions to incorporate explosives manufacturing into the program, to add construction permit requirements for new chemical and explosive facilities, and other minor technical amendments to the regulations to reflect statutory amendments to the list of regulated chemicals. Facilities that manufacture explosives or ammonium nitrate/fuel oil for sale will be subject to the requirements of the program. A fee structure to regulate explosive facilities is established.

Petition 2001-08 (LCB R-089-01) permanently amends NAC 519A.350, reclamation of land subject to mining operations or exploration projects. See http://ndep.state.nv.us/sec/p2001-08.pdf The amended regulations provide minor changes regarding surety bonding by allowing up to 75% of the required surety to be satisfied by the corporate guarantee, based upon periodic review by the administrator. The amendments also require that the financial information submitted comply with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and that the financial statements submitted be audited.

Petition 2002-01 (LCB R-096-01) permanently amends NAC 445A.070 to 445A.348, the water pollution control program by amending 445A.100, the definition for "point source," by adding language that defines earth moving equipment, and 445A.309, the definition for "diffuse source," to incorporate runoff in various subsections of the definition. See http://ndep.state.nv.us/sec/p2002-01.pdf In addition, the definition for "diffuse source" clarifies provisions regarding urban area runoff and earth moving activities. The regulation will assist regulated communities in determining when water pollution control permits are necessary.

NEW JERSEY

Department of Envtl. Protection

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality

New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, N.J.A.C. 7:14A, Amendments and repeal. Hearing Nov. 13; comments due Nov. 14. The proposed repeal of N.J.A.C. 7:14A-11, Appendices A and B, will remove the text of the "basic industrial" and "construction" stormwater general permits from the NJPDES rules; however, these general permits will remain fully effective and enforceable. The proposed amendment to N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.13(c) will establish a list, for informational purposes only, of all general permits issued under N.J.A.C. 7:14A.

The proposed amendments to the NJPDES fee rules at N.J.A.C. 7:14A-3.1 will address minimum fees and fee calculations, and make various revisions to improve organizational structure and clarity. The proposal seeks to amend the fee rules to provide an expedited and more efficient means for adopting new or revised minimum permit fees, to improve fee equitability, to codify current Departmental practices, and to make other administrative changes. See http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/rules.htm#proposals and http://www.state.nj.us/dep/rules/notices/101501a.html

Final regulations became effective Sept. 4. The rule package includes the following: special protection for small wetland vernal habitats that are crucial to the breeding of several amphibian species, some of which are threatened or endangered; limits on the placement of new homes near transition areas, or "buffers," to avoid creating backyards that cannot be used because it is a regulated area; stronger penalties for failure to promptly perform required mitigation; more efficient application and permitting procedures including combined general permits and transition area waivers, and combined freshwater wetlands and floodplain permits for some activities that occur in wetlands located in floodplains; stricter limits on the use of the general permit for isolated wetlands in certain waters; new general permits for landfill closures, stream cleaning by local governments, tree cutting for airport safety, livestock watering troughs, and brownfields redevelopment; and standard operating procedures to protect wetlands during dam removal, brownfield redevelopment, and landfill closure. The rule provides new protection for vernal habitats that are isolated wetlands recently found to be key breeding grounds for numerous amphibian and plant species. See http://www.state.nj.us/dep/landuse/announce/announce.html#fwwadoption and http://www.state.nj.us/dep/newsrel/releases/01_0092.htm

N.J.A.C. 7:7A. Rule Title: Freshwater Wetlands Rules--Landscape Project, Takings Provisions, Water Allocation Provisions. The proposal will amend the freshwater wetlands rules to add the Landscape Project as the method of determining the size and shape of endangered species habitat and will include provisions governing the issuance of water allocation permits for projects that may drain wetlands. The proposal will also include amendments to these rules and to the coastal permit program rules required by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court in its decision in East Cape May Associates v. State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, A-1000-99T5, July 25, 2001.

N.J.A.C. 7:7E. Rule Title: Coastal Zone Management Rules (Readoption). Proposed readoption including various amendments related to special areas, general water areas, general land areas, use, and resource rules. Amendments are also proposed to reflect Department's current organizational structure, terminology, and definitions. Amendments are also proposed to the Coastal Permit Program rules, N.J.A.C. 7:7, which focus on notice requirements for coastal permit applications, modification requests for coastal permits, and specific coastal general permits. In addition, as part of the readoption of the 90-Day Construction Permits rules,N.J.A.C. 7:1C, the Department indicated that it would be reorganizing N.J.A.C. 7:1C to relocate certain provisions specific to the coastal permitting programs from the 90-Day Construction Permits rules to the Coastal Permit Program rules. Amendments are also proposed to the 90-Day Construction Permits rules to relocate provisions applicable to coastal permits to N.J.A.C. 7:7-10.

N.J.A.C. 7:26. Rule Title: Solid Waste Regulations (Readoption). Proposed readoption with amendments to update technical requirements, add conditional exemptions, and clarify certain provisions of the rules. These amendments include new regulatory exemptions, streamlined reporting requirements, and new technical standards for liquid waste transfer stations and commercial medical waste facilities. The rules will also propose the entering of voluntary covenants between sanitary landfill owner/operators and the Department under the Department's Silver and Gold Track Program for Environmental Performance.

N.J.A.C. 7:27-16. Rule Title: Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution By Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). Proposal to amend VOC (RACT) rules to incorporate the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) model rules for "Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing," "Solvent Cleaning Operations," "Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control," and some provisions from CARB's model rule concerning "Enhanced Vapor Recovery." These rules are intended to reduce VOC emissions. The OTC model rules are being used by the OTC states to assist them in meeting ozone attainment shortfalls.

For the San Francisco and Gila watersheds, including the following draft TMDL waterbodies: Centerfire Creek (plant nutrients), San Francisco River (plant nutrients), Whitewater Creek (aluminum), Mangas Creek (plant nutrients), Canyon Creek (plant nutrients and turbidity), and Sapillo Creek (turbidity and total organic carbon). The draft de-list letter is for Sapillo Creek (biological impairment). Comments were due Sept. 28, but comments will be accepted at a Nov. 13 meeting of the Water Quality Control Commission. See http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/OOTS/Public%20Notices/Gila%20SanFransisco%20Pub%20Notic.PDF and http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/swqb.html

NEW YORK

Department of Envtl. Conservation

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) for Water Pollution Control; Final FFY 2002 Intended Use Plan (IUP)

The IUP includes a list of projects that could receive low interest financing between Oct.1, 2001, and Sept. 30, 2002. New projects may be added to the IUP Annual and Multi-Year Project Priority Lists as they are identified by municipalities interested in CWSRF financing. Notification of additions to the Project Priority Lists will be made through quarterly updates to the final IUP.

Emergency Regulations-Air Quality

Amendments to the following parts and subparts of Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules, and Regulations of the State of New York: Part 200, General Provisions, Part 201, Permits and Registration, Subpart 225-1, Fuel Composition and Use- Sulfur Limitations and Subpart 227-2, Reasonably Available Control Technology for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx). The New York State Public Service Commission, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, the New York Independent System Operator (the NYISO), and the New York State Reliability Council have expressed concern about the ability of the electricity generation, transmission, and distribution system (the electric grid) in New York State to accommodate increasing loads without additional generation. These parties, all of whom share some responsibility for assuring the reliability of the electric grid in New York State, are concerned that, during the summertime peak electricity demand periods, existing generation capacity in New York State may be insufficient and power outages may occur. This potential supply shortfall is expected to disappear when the first new central electricity generating plants, currently being sited pursuant to the Public Service Law Article X process, begin operating. This should happen prior to the summer of 2003.

In response to the above-described concerns, the NYISO developed an Emergency Demand Response Program (EDRP) for the 2001 and 2002 peak demand periods. The EDRP is meant to encourage certain electricity customers to reduce electrical demand during emergency situations to help assure that demand will not outstrip supply and the need for load shedding (rolling blackouts) will not arise. Much of this demand reduction potential will come from the availability of emergency generation capacity. Previously, the DEC’s regulations only allow emergency generators to operate when the usual source of power is actually interrupted rather than when interruption is imminent. These amendments will permit emergency generators that are part of the EDRP to operate for up to 200 hours per year when called on by the NYISO in situations where load shedding is imminent. The emergency generators that take part in the EDRP will be defined as "centrally dispatched emergency power generating units" and the emergency generators that may be used when the primary source of power is actually unavailable will be defined as "facility specific emergency power units." "Centrally dispatched emergency power generating units" must refuel with fuel having a sulfur content of no more than 30 parts per million sulfur unless deemed unavailable. These units, "centrally dispatched emergency power generating units" and "facility specific emergency power generating units," will retain their exemption from the NOx RACT requirements of Subpart 227-2 provided they operate within the parameters of their Part 201 exemptions.

Draft Regulations-Air Quality-Acid Rain Control

DEC released draft acid rain standards. The new draft regulations have been forwarded to the Governor's Office of Regulatory Reform, which will review them with stakeholder groups prior to their formal proposal. Once formally proposed, the public will have at least 45 days to review and comment on the draft regulations. After evaluating all public comments, a final regulation will be sent to the State Environmental Board, which will submit its recommendation on whether to adopt the regulation to the DEC Commissioner. The draft regulations are in response to Governor Pataki's direction to DEC to issue regulations requiring electric generators in the state to further reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 50% beyond federal CAA requirements by 2007, and to expand summertime NOx controls to year-round in 2003. Under the new regulations, sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions would be reduced by an additional 130,000 tons annually, and NOx emissions would be reduced by 20,000 tons annually. The rules would require that NOx controls, already in place for most facilities in the summertime ozone season, be used year-round beginning in 2004, and that SO2 controls be in place by 2008. The compliance dates were extended by one year in order to accommodate the additional investment and construction of control equipment. The draft regulations contain a provision that allows an individual facility a temporary exemption from emission requirements if the State Department of Public Service determines that compliance would imperil the reliability of the New York State electric power system. See http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/press/pressrel/2001-100.html

Draft Enforcement Directive

Final draft of the Enforcement Directive entitled Management of Coal Tar Wastes and Soils and Sediments Contaminated with Coal Tar from Former Manufactured Gas Plants (MGPs). The main purpose of this directive is to facilitate the permanent treatment of soil contaminated with coal tar from the sites of former MGPs. This guidance outlines the criteria wherein coal tar waste and soils and sediment that have been contaminated with coal tar waste from former MGPs only exhibiting the toxicity characteristic for benzene (D018) may be conditionally excluded from the requirements of 6 NYCRR Parts 370 -374 and 376 when they are destined for permanent thermal treatment. Copies of the final draft of the Enforcement Directive and Responsiveness Summary are available from Eric Obrecht, Division of Environmental Remediation, DEC, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-7012.

Temporary regulations, effective for 270 days while permanent rules are prepared, proposed, and promulgated, approved by Environmental Management Commission Sept. 13. They became effective Oct. 22; a court rejected a challenge brought by a coalition of business groups (North Carolina Home Builders Ass'n v. Environmental Mgmt. Comm., No. 99-CV-11706 (Sup. Ct. Wake Co. Oct. 22, 2001). See http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/emc/committees/wq/2001/2001-07-07.pdf. The provisions of this rule shall apply to Division of Water Quality (Division) regulatory and resource management determinations regarding isolated wetlands and isolated classified surface waters. The rule shall only apply to discharges resulting from activities that require state review after the effective date and that require a Division determination concerning effects on isolated wetlands and isolated classified surface waters. For the purpose of this rule, discharge shall be the deposition of dredged or fill material including but not limited to fill, earth, construction debris, and soil. If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or Natural Resources Conservation Service determines that a particular water is isolated and not regulated under §404 of the CWA, then discharges to that water shall be covered by these rules (15A NCAC 2H. 1301 to .1305). For the purpose of this rule during field determinations made by the Division, isolated wetlands are those waters that are inundated or saturated by an accumulation of surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions and under normal circumstances have no visible surface water connection to downstream waters of the state. Visible surface water connection includes but is not limited to a connection to other surface water via (1) continuous wetlands, (2) intermittent or perennial streams, and (3) ditches with intermittent or perennial flow. The litigants argued that the Commission lacks authority to regulate isolated wetlands in the absence of a statutory change or, at a minimum, a change in the wording of 15A NCAC 2B. 0202(71) (defining wetlands).

Proposed Coastal Area Management Act Land-Use Planning Improvements

Were conducted through Sept. 12. The Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) requires the 20 coastal counties to develop land-use plans and update them regularly. The practice is optional for cities and towns in those counties. CAMA gives the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) authority to approve the plans. The CRC is considering needed improvements in the planning guidelines and the way the state helps local governments pay for coastal land-use plans. The new guidelines have several goals, including:

· Giving local governments more flexibility to tailor planning to meet local needs;

· Improving coastal water quality by requiring local governments to adopt policies that prevent or control stormwater runoff;

· Strengthening public education requirements to ensure that all segments of the community, including non-resident property owners, have the opportunity to take part in the development of the land-use plan; and

Proposed amended rules will set forth certification criteria for laboratory facilities performing any tests, analyses, measurements, or monitoring required under G.S. 143, Article 21, or any rules adopted there under, and to update the fees for certification. The rules apply to laboratory facilities that perform analyses for persons subject to G.S. 143-215.1, 143-215.63, et seq.; the Environmental Management Commission Rules for Surface Water Monitoring and Reporting (15A NCAC 02B .0500); Groundwater rules (15A NCAC 02L .0100, .0200, and .0300); Waste Not Discharged to Surface Waters rules (15A NCAC 02H.0200); Point Source Discharges to the Surface Waters rules (15A NCAC 02H .0100); Local Pretreatment Programs (15A NCAC 02H .0900); and the Underground Storage Tank Program of the Division of Waste Management and will be formally proposed.

Proposed Regulations-Coastal Management; Land Use Planning Guidelines

In Nov. 1998, the CRC authorized the appointment of the Land Use Plan Review Team to evaluate the CAMA land use planning program and make recommendations for improvement. Based on the recommendations submitted in Sept. 2000, the CRC is revising its land use planning guidelines (Subchapter 07B). The revised guidelines aim to improve the quality of local plans by better supporting the purposes and goals of CAMA.

The primary purpose of this review is to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 119.032 (five-year review); the review date for these rules is September 27, 2001. The Division of Air Pollution Control (DAPC) has proposed only minor revisions, updates, corrections and clarifications to the particulate matter rules and plansto continue the rules in their current form. OAC rules 3745-17-01, 17-02, 17-03, 17-04, 17-07, 17-08, and 17-11 have proposed minor changes. The rules were submitted for interested party review for 30 days on July 27, 2001.

Pursuant to Chapter 119.03 of the Ohio Revised Code, a public hearing on this rule review will be conducted on Tuesday, November 6, 2001, at 11:00 a.m. in Conference Room "B" on the fifth floor, Ohio EPA, 122 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio. See http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dapc/general/pub_hm.html

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality

Ohio EPA has proposed changes in rules governing water quality standards, and is accepting written public comments through Nov. 5. In addition, a public hearing will be held in two sessions Oct. 29, to take verbal comments on the rules. The proposed changes would change or create beneficial use designations for 185 water body segments in 14 drainage basins including: Hocking, Scioto, Grand, Maumee, Sandusky, Little Miami, Huron, Rocky, Chagrin, Portage, Muskingum, Mahoning, Cuyahoga, Black, Vermillion, and Wabash Rivers, and Fields Brook (Ashtabula River); Little Beaver and Mill Creeks; and Central Ohio, Southeast Ohio, and Southwest Ohio tributary basins. The proposed changes also convert the rules from appendix format to text format.

Water quality standards are state rules that protect lakes, rivers, streams, and other surface water bodies from pollution. The rules contain beneficial use designations that are water quality goals for water bodies; uses include aquatic life habitats, recreation, and water supplies. Specific water quality criteria are associated with each beneficial use. Together, the uses and criteria may be the basis for pollutant limits in wastewater discharge permits.

State and federal laws require Ohio EPA to periodically update the water quality standard rules to reflect the latest scientific information. Ohio EPA has new information that supports making the proposed changes. The new information came from water body sampling conducted by Ohio EPA scientists. This sampling includes a scientific assessment of the biological condition of the water body and evaluations of habitat and water quality. This data is used to determine the present health and uses of water bodies and predict the potential health and use of water bodies if more pollution controls are imposed.

Written comments may be mailed to Ohio EPA, Attention: Chris Skalski, Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water, P.O. Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049, by the close of business, Nov. 5.

Copies of the proposed rules and supporting documentation are available on Ohio EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/rules/draftrules.html, or by contacting Chris Skalski at (614) 644-2144, or writing to the address above. Proposed rules also are available for inspection at Ohio EPA's district offices in Twinsburg, Bowling Green, Logan, Dayton and Columbus.

Proposed Regulations-Solid Waste Management-Licensing Regulations

Review of the rules governing the licensing of solid waste, infectious waste, and construction and demolition debris facilities. This review is being conducted to satisfy requirements mandated by Ohio Revised Code (ORC) §119.032, which requires all state agencies to review each of their rules every five years to determine whether or not to continue the rules without change, amend the rules, or rescind the rules.The Division of Solid & Infectious Waste Management (DSIWM) has reviewed and drafted new language for the following Licensing Rules:

3745-400-15 Facility license applications, modifications and exemptions. While the draft rules do include some new concepts (voluntary removal of health departments from the approved list, facility specific minimum inspection frequencies, as well as the incorporation of existing rule language from other chapters regarding mandatory closure, and statutory language regarding license fees), the majority of the existing OAC Chapter 3745-37 requirements have been retained and clarified. Comments due Nov. 29. See http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsiwm/pages/news_pages/n_draft_lic_rules.html

Review of the "miscellaneous" landfill rules listed below. This review is being conducted to satisfy requirements mandated by Ohio Revised Code (ORC) §119.032, which requires all state agencies to review each of their rules every five years to determine whether or not to continue the rules without change, amend the rules, or rescind the rules.

On Oct. 22, Ohio EPA adopted final rule revisions addressing the protection of aquatic life in the Ohio River drainage basin. This rulemaking updates the Ohio River drainage basin water quality criteria and values for aquatic life, making the aquatic life water quality criteria, values and development methodologies consistent statewide. See http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/rules/final_orb.html

Ohio EPA Responds to U.S. EPA Program Review

Ohio EPA submitted its response to U.S. EPA's draft program review report covering surface water, solid waste, hazardous waste, and air quality. The state's response to the air portion of the draft report will be submitted later this month. U.S. EPA released its draft report on Sept. 4, and provided 30 days for Ohio EPA to comment. On Sept. 28, Ohio EPA received approximately 200 pages of additional information from U.S. EPA related to their review of the state air program. Ohio EPA requested an additional 15 work days to review that information before finalizing a response to that part of the report. The information submitted to U.S. EPA, including a brief executive summary, is posted on Ohio EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dir/ohresp.html. The completed air report response is also available at the Web site.

OAC 252:100-4, New Source Performance Standards. These amendments will incorporate by reference any new or amended NSPS promulgated between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2001. OAC 252:100-5-2.2(b). Registration, Emission Inventory, and Annual Operating Fees [AMENDED]. The proposed revision will provide for an increase in annual operating fees. OAC 252:100-41. Control of Emission of Hazardous and Toxic Air Contaminants. The proposed amendments to Subchapter 41 will incorporate by reference the maximum achievable control technology standards for hazardous air pollutants in 40 C.F.R. Part 63 promulgated between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2001. Hearing was Oct. 24. See http://www.deq.state.ok.us/air1/current.html

Lower Sucker Creek TMDL and Water Quality Management Plan. The Lower Sucker Creek TMDL document, which addresses pollution load limits, includes all lands from mile 10.4 (U.S. Forest Service boundary) to the mouth of Sucker Creek. Three water bodies within the Lower Sucker Creek Watershed do not meet state water quality standards. Public meeting Nov. 13; comments due Nov. 14. See http://www.deq.state.or.us/news/releases/340.htm and http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/tmdls/tmdls.htm

Comments due Nov. 9. The proposed rulemaking establishes a new heavy-duty diesel emissions control program designed to primarily reduce emissions of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and air toxics from new heavy-duty diesel engines and trucks. The proposed amendments adopt and incorporate by reference certain requirements of the California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 1985 and Subsequent Model Year Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles as authorized under the CAA §177 (42 U.S.C.A. §7507). See http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol31/31-35/1600.html

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality-Proposed Revision to the State Implementation Plan for the Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection/Maintenance Program

Revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program to demonstrate the need for an extension to Jan. 1, 2003, to include onboard diagnostics (OBD) testing in the program. States must demonstrate to EPA that an extension is necessary to allow for successful implementation of OBD testing. This SIP revision describes the legal, technical, regulatory and operational constraints which has led the Commonwealth to seek an extension. Hearings Nov. 27, 28, and 29. See http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol31/31-43/1927.html

Proposed Regulations-Safe Drinking Water Amendments (CCR & PN Rules)

Comments due Nov. 7. The amendments include new requirements for community water systems to prepare and provide to their customers an annual consumer confidence report, major revisions to the public notification requirements, minor revisions to the regulation of lead and copper to improve implementation, and minor revisions to Chapter 109 to retain primary enforcement authority (primacy) and to clarify existing requirements. See http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol31/31-36/1640.html

Water Quality-Draft Comprehensive Stormwater Management Policy

Proposal to update the current stormwater management program, using existing authority, to improve water quality, sustain water quantity (including ground water recharge and stream base flow) and integrate upcomingstormwater management obligations. The draft proposal is available on the DEP website at http://www.dep.state.pa.us (''Comprehensive Stormwater Policy'') or can be obtained by contacting Stuart Gansell at (717) 783-7420, e-mail to sgansell@state.pa.us or DEP Office of Water Management, Bureau of Watershed Management, 10th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building, P. O. Box 8555, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555. At the 15 water forums held throughout the Commonwealth in the spring of 2001, stormwater management was a consistent and recurring concern of citizens and municipal officials. DEP is facing challenges to its existing approach in litigation before the Environmental Hearing Board. The Commonwealth must also implement Phase II stormwater controls under the federal Clean Water Act within the next several years. DEP proposes a best management practices (BMP) approach to stormwater management that generally encourages, and sometimes requires, minimization and infiltration of stormwater flows. This approach will reduce pollutant loadings to streams, recharge groundwater tables, enhance stream base flow during times of drought and reduce the threat of flooding and stream bank erosion resulting from storm events. Permit conditions will require BMPs as the means of managing stormwater from both Phase I and Phase II construction, as well as postconstruction stormwater flows. Administratively, DEP proposes to integrate its permitting programs with stormwater management plans developed on a watershed basis under theStormwater Management Act (Act 167). Act 167 county plans will include water quality and quantity protections implemented by municipalities within the watershed. In addition, DEP will, in appropriate circumstances, rely on these Act 167 plans to meet the NPDES permitting requirements for municipalities under the Phase II municipal stormwater permitting program. Comments accepted through Dec. 27. See http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol31/31-43/1928.html

Acceptance of applications for Technical Assistance Grants through the Growing Greener Program

The DEP has modified municipal waste processing and disposal facility permits on an emergency and temporary basis, as necessary, to manage the municipal waste backlogs and demolition waste generated by the terrorist attacks of Sept.11, in order to prevent a public health or environmental emergency. These modifications are limited to the temporary extension of operating hours, operating days, and increases in maximum and average daily volume at the facilities and were made in response to written request by the permittee.

Emergency Regulations--Swine Facilities with 1,000,000 Pounds or More of Normal Production Animal Live Weight at Any One Time; Proposed Regulations

Filed Aug. 8, effective for 90 days. On Apr. 23, Governor Jim Hodges issued Executive Order No. 2001-11, which declared a State of Emergency due to the threat of a disaster within the state due to additional larger swine facilities proposing to locate in South Carolina. The Executive Order also ordered the "Board of Health and Environmental Control to meet at the earliest possible time to consider an administrative moratorium on the issuance of permits for swine facilities, lagoons, and associated waste management plans or other appropriate action that will allow sufficient time for exploration of and analysis of the issues associated with the handling, storage, treatment, and final disposal or utilization of wastes created by these facilities." The Board of Health and Environmental Control, as directed by the Governor, met and imposed a moratorium on issuance of permits for swine facilities until Aug. 9, 2001. While the Department is proposing revisions to S.C. Regulation 61-43, Standards for the Permitting of Agricultural Animal Facilities, the new emergency rule will address the emergency until Regulation 61-43 can be permanently amended, anticipated to take place by approximately June 1, 2002. The time period between the moratorium expiration date and probable legislative approval of the proposed regulation includes hurricane season. The regulation does not create a new permit, but ensures that appropriate requirements are applied to swine facilities permitted for 1,000,000 pounds or more of normal production animal weight at any one time until Regulation 61-43 can be permanently amended. See http://www.scdhec.net/co/regs/

The hearing date for the proposed permanent regulations has been postponed until Dec. 13. See http://www.lpitr.state.sc.us/regs/2646.doc (proposed rules) The amendments will: (1) establish a new Part 50 where all definitions are now found; (2) rewrite Part 100 (Swine Facilities) in its entirety which will be the separate and distinct regulation for swine facilities as required by 1996 Act No. 460, which will be the separate and distinct regulation for swine facilities as required by 1996 Act No.460, which included the Confined Swine Feeding Operations Act; (3) add new requirements to Part 100 which address a new class of large swine facilities; (4) modify Part 200 (Other Animal Facilities) and Part 300 (Innovative and Alternative technology); (5) add a new section that specifically outlines requirements for manure broker operations, as well as a section that addresses integrator registration, and a section for severability; and (6) incorporate recommendations made by a Regulation Development Committee which was organized to review the regulation for issues and concerns.

Proposed Amendment of R.61-79, Hazardous Waste Management Regulations: U.S. EPA promulgates amendments to 40 C.F.R. pts.124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, and 273 throughout each calendar year. Recent amendments include final standards for hazardous air pollutants for hazardous waste combustors, listing of two chlorinated aliphatics production wastewater treatment sludges (K174 and K175) including a contingent-management listing approach; increased flexibility to certain facilities that store low-level mixed radioactive and hazardous wastes; the temporary deferral of PCB treatment standards for metal contaminated soils; and revisions to the mixture and derived-from rules. In addition, minor typographical errors may be corrected to achieve conformity with federal regulations. These rules and other amendments have been published in the Federal Register between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2001. The Department intends to amend R.61-79 to maintain conformity with federal requirements and ensure compliance with federal standards. No preliminary assessment report, fiscal impact statement, nor legislative review of this amendment will be required. Comments due Nov. 29.

DHEC is proposing amendments to R.61-79 to remove state provisions that are not required for federal compliance and that provide financial assurance for restoration of environmental impairment. Removal of these provisions is proposed as a result of an Apr. 4, 2000, decision of the South Carolina Court of Appeals. This amendment will remove the environmental impairment regulations that were published as proposed in the State Register on June 24, 1994, and published as final regulations in the State Register on June 23, 1995, as Document No. 1823. Affected sections are R.61-79.264, subsections .152, and .153 and cross-references at 264.140 and 265.140. Legislative review will be required. Was submitted to Board Oct. 11. Comments due Nov. 29.

Certain waste residues from the production of butyl tins have been demonstrated to be hazardous to marine flora and fauna. Both state and federal laws allow for the promulgation of such regulations, procedures, or standards as may be necessary to protect the health and safety of the public, the health of living organisms, and the environment. DHEC intends to add state listings for solid wastes containing certain organo-tin compounds to R.61-79.261. The intention of this amendment will be to bring certain organo-tin compounds under hazardous waste regulation, since mismanagement of these compounds poses a threat to human health and the environment. Legislative review will be required. The public comment period closed after public hearing by the DHEC Board on Oct. 26, at which time the Board approved the proposed amendment for submission to the General Assembly for review. It was filed with the Legislative Council on Oct. 12.

Proposed Regulations-Drinking Water Quality

Proposed Amendment of R.61-58, State Primary Drinking Water Regulations.DHEC proposes to revise the regulations to include requirements promulgated under the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Public Notification Rule, and the Radionuclide Rule. The Public Notification Rule revises current public notification procedures requiring public water systems to notify the public any time a water system violates a primary drinking water regulation or has other situations posing a risk to public health. This rule applies to all public water systems. The Radionuclide Rule revises the monitoring requirements for radionuclides. Monitoring and reporting of radionuclides applies to community public water systems. This action is mandated by the 1996 amendments to the federal SDWA. Proposed regulations will comply with 40 C.F.R. pts. 141 and 142. The final Public Notification Rule was published in the May 4, 2000, Federal Register, with an effective date of June 5, 2000. Primacy states must adopt this rule by May 6, 2002. The Radionuclide Rule was published in the Dec. 7, 2000, Federal Register, with an effective date of Dec. 8, 2003. Other minor revisions will include, but not be limited to, deletion of the maximum contaminant level for Nickel and the aldicarbs, deletion of the Phase I VOC monitoring for surface water systems, and the review of the analytical methodology for coliform. These revisions are to align the State Primary Drinking Water Regulations with federal regulations. The proposed regulations will comply with federal law and are exempt from legislative review; neither a preliminary assessment report nor a fiscal impact statement is required.

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality

The Department is proposing to amend R.61-30, as follows:

Pursuant to S.C. Code Section 48-2-50 (1993), the Department shall charge fees for environmental programs it administers pursuant to federal and state law and regulations. R.61-30, Environmental Protection Fees, prescribes those fees applicable to applicants and holders of permits, licenses, certificates, certifications, and registrations (hereinafter, "permits") and establishes schedules for timely action on permit applications. This regulation also establishes procedures for the payment of fees, provides for the assessment of penalties for nonpayment, and establishes an appeals process to contest the calculation or applicability of the fees.

The Department is proposing to amend R.61-30 as follows:

(1) Raise fees for NPDES and No-Discharge permit annual fees to maintain existing staff and present turnaround times for issuing permits and general program activities. [61-30.G(1)(a)(i)-(iii)]

(2) Raise fees for drinking water annual fees to maintain existing staff and the present level of services to the public water systems. [61-30.G(2)(a)(i)&(ii)]

(3) Raise agricultural annual operating fees for agricultural facilities and to add a category for the large swine facilities with an appropriate fee. [61-30.G(1)(b)]

(4) Raise agricultural annual operating fees for agricultural facilities and to add a category for the large swine facilities with an appropriate fee. [61-30.G(1)(a)(v)1&2]

(5) Raise fees for new and expanding facilities and to add more categories of agricultural applications, e.g. upgrades and additions, for which application fees will be applicable. [61-30.G(1)(d)(i)-(vii)]

(6) Charge a nominal fee for drinking water permit application fees based on the size and complexity of the construction project. [61-30.G(2)(c)]

(7) Raise fees for NPDES industrial storm water and construction NPDES Storm Water Permits in order to hire additional field staff for compliance determinations. [61-30.G(1)(a)(iii) & (vi) & 61-30.G(1)(c)(v)] No hearing date has been set.

(9) Add a fee to cover the costs and effort of the Commercial Fixed Nuclear Facilities (FNF) program for FY03. [61-30.G (13)]

In addition, due to numerous revisions at 61-30.G (1) and G(2) described above, stylistic changes will also be made in form and outline; these sections will be replaced in entirety.

A Notice of Drafting for the proposed revisions was published in the State Register on July 26, 2001.

Status: A Notice of Drafting to amend R.61-30 was published in the State Register on July 27, 2001. The drafting comment period closed Aug. 31, 2001. On Oct. 11, 2001, the DHEC Board granted staff initial approval to publish a Notice of Proposed Regulation in the State Register and to conduct a staff-information forum. The Notice, containing the text of the proposed revisions and information on how the public can comment, was published in the State Register on Oct. 26, and can be viewed at http://www.lpitr.state.sc.us/regs/2673.doc

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

Proposed Amendment of R.61-86.1, Standards of Performance for Asbestos Projects. DHEC proposes to amend R.61-86.1 to prescribe alternate procedures and fees for asbestos abatement projects and licenses. The purpose of this revision is to add fees for other special asbestos project categories. This proposed amendment is necessary to help provide adequate funding for the asbestos program. The fee schedule for asbestos abatement projects and licenses has not been updated since established in 1988. South Carolina's fee schedule will be expanded in some areas, taking into account current fees assessed by other southeastern states. DHEC is proposing to add fees for the licensing of asbestos training courses that are required for asbestos abatement personnel and for the processing and inspection of demolition projects. Legislative review will be required. A Notice of Proposed Regulation, containing the text of the proposed amendments and information on how the public can comment, was published in the State Register on Oct. 28 and can be viewed at http://www.lpitr.state.sc.us/regs/2670.doc

Final Regulations-Air Quality

Amendment of R.61-62, Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards. Recent U.S. EPA amendments include clarification, guidance and technical amendments regarding New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS), Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), and Chemical Accident Prevention. These rules and other amendments were published prior to January 1, 2001. Pursuant to S.C. Code Section 48-1-10 et seq., the Department amended R.61-62, Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards, to incorporate these amendments. The Department also made corrections and clarifications to the regulations to improve ease of use of the regulations by the regulated community. Approved by the DHEC Board Oct. 26. See http://www.lpitr.state.sc.us/regs/2648.doc

Proposed Regulations-Solid Waste Management

Proposed Amendment of R.61-107.11, Solid Waste Management: Construction, Demolition, and Land-Clearing Debris Landfills. As a means of streamlining Department regulations, the proposed amendment to R.61-107.11 will rename the regulation from Construction, Demolition, and Land-clearing Debris Landfills to Inert Landfills and Structural Fill and will encompass construction, demolition, and land-clearing debris landfills, inert industrial landfills currently addressed as Class I in R.61-107.16 (and will supersede all requirements that pertain to Class I, Appendix I industrial solid waste landfills outlined in R.61-107.16) and structural fills. The proposed changes will include, but not necessarily limited to, placing more emphasis on the waste stream and less emphasis on the source of generation. Criteria will be defined for determining if a waste is inert and suitable for disposal in an Inert Landfill. The difference between "structural fill" and "beneficial fill" will be clarified. The proposed amendment will delete ambiguous language that addresses a structural fill exemption, delete Part I for short-term landfills and replace it with new language that requires registration for structural fill activity in lieu of permitting. This measure is meant to clarify the language of the regulation, to help alleviate open dumping, and to provide a viable mechanism for structural fill using a suitable waste stream. In Part II, beneficial fill will be better defined. Part III landfills will be renamed Noncommercial Inert Landfills. The provisions under Part III will be revised based on a revised definition of structural fill, and to allow a waste stream based on type of waste instead of the source of generation. Part IV landfills will be renamed Commercial Inert Landfills and will be revised to allow a waste stream based on type of waste instead of the source of generation. Changes to Part IV include the addition of demonstration-of-need requirements pursuant to R.61-107.17, and expanding transfer of ownership and financial assurance requirements to be consistent with other regulations. The Department is considering the addition of groundwater monitoring and post-closure requirements to Parts III and IV. This proposed amendment will also define "lead-based paint", maintaining consistency with other Department regulations and federal standards. In the Appendices, disposal of brown goods, segregated commercial waste, animal carcasses, and cathode ray tubes will be addressed. As appropriate throughout the regulation, procedures for determining the separation of the groundwater table and the bottom of the disposal area, permitting and reporting requirements, and criteria for noting the existence of a disposal facility on property in the record of ownership will be revised and clarified. Comments due Nov. 26.

TNRCC has adopted new rules to cover auto emission inspections in Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso andHouston-Galveston regions. Commissioners approved a fee of up to a maximum of $27 for emissioninspections. The rules go into effect on May 1, 2002 in Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Collin and Denton counties. The increase, from the earlier proposal of $22.50, will help cover the costs of local inspection stations to perform the new emission testing. Local inspection stations will be allowed under the new rules to offerincentives or discounts to vehicle owners who get their vehicles tested during off-peak periods during an inspection month. When added to the required state safety inspection fee of $12.50, vehicle owners in the two target regions can expect to pay a maximum of $39.50 beginning in May, 2002. The new rules will delay the implementation of what is referred to as "on board diagnostic" (OBD) testing of vehicles in El Paso from May 1, 2002 until January 1, 2003. OBD testing is performed by directly linking a computer at the inspection station to the computer "on board" the vehicle to determine emission levels. The delay will allow staff more time to explore options and take into consideration any changes in El Paso's air quality status by U.S. EPA. Inspection stations in El Paso will be allowed to increase the total inspection fee from the current $13.00 to $14.00 beginning in May 1, 2002, but will continue to use two-speed idle emission testing methods. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/rule_lib/adoptions/01035114_ado.pdf

House Bill 2518: Air Notice Regulations, Chapter 39, Public Notice. Relating to the public notice requirements for air permit amendments for the emission of air contaminants. This rule establishes insignificant levels for agricultural facilities, de minimis levels for all other facilities, and criteria for the meaning of net increase, for the purpose of public notice. This addresses the notice requirements of HB 2518. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/rule_lib/adoptions/01028a039_ado.pdf

General Permit-Stormwater Discharges from Industrial Facilities

The Commissioners of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission approved issuance of TPDES General Permit No. TXR050000, covering eligible stormwater and certain non-storm water discharges from industrial facilities, on Wednesday, May 23, 2001. The permit was signed on Monday, Aug. 20, 2001, and is therefore issued and effective on that date. Facilities that were covered under the 1995 NPDES permit have 90 days from the issuance date to submit their Notice of Intent (NOI) for permit coverage. This 90-day period expires on Monday, Nov. 19, 2001. All other facilities must prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan and submit an NOI as soon as possible. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/permitting/waterperm/wwperm/txro50000.pdf and http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/permitting/waterperm/wwperm/industry.html

Proposed Regulations-Miscellaneous

Indexing, Cross-Indexing, and Availability of Certain Documents. Tom Lake, Cameron, Texas Petition - Chapter 20. The TNRCC received a rulemaking petition requesting the agency amend 30 TAC, Chapter 20, Rulemaking, Section 20.3, APA Rulemaking. The proposed amendment would more fully implement the provision of Texas Government Code, Section 2001.004, Requirement to Adopt Rules of Practice and indexRules, Orders, and Decisions, which requires the agency to index and cross-index to statute its rules, find orders, decisions, and opinions. Comments due Dec. 10. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/rule_lib/proposals/00058020_pro.pdf

HB 2912 Art 3.07: Public Health Services Fee Equity Issues. House Bill (HB) 2912, 77th Legislature, 2001 mandates the commission to consider equity in the establishment of the public health drinking water fee rates. The proposed amendment to this chapter is intended to consider equity while generating overall revenue at the current revenue stream. The revenue generated from the new fee assessment does not exceed the amount appropriated by the legislature for fiscal year (FY) 2002, nor is it greater than the revenue generated under the previous assessment in FY 2001. Hearing Nov. 8; comments due Nov. 12. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hearings/01099290_phn.pdf and http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/rule_lib/proposals/01099290_pro.pdf

The Designation of a Groundwater Management Area. In response to a petition for rulemaking filed by Save Our Springs of North East Texas on Behalf of 57 landowners of Wood County, the commission instructed staff to initiate rulemaking to designate a groundwater management area in northeast Texas to include all of Wood County. Commission conducting a rulemaking to decide if a groundwater management area should be designated, and if so, to determine the most suitable boundaries. The commission plans to designate a groundwater management area with the objective of providing the most suitable area for the management of all groundwater resources by a groundwater conservation district. Hearings Nov. 12 & 13; comments due Dec. 10. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hearings/01012294_phn.pdf and http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/rule_lib/proposals/01012294_pro.pdf

HB 2912 Art 3.07: Public Health Services Fee Equity Issues. House Bill (HB) 2912, 77th Legislature, 2001 mandates the Commission to consider equity in the establishment of the public health drinking water fee rates. The proposed amendment to this chapter is intended to consider equity while generating overall revenue at the current revenue stream. The revenue generated from the new fee assessment does not exceed the amount appropriated by the legislature for fiscal year (FY) 2002, nor is it greater than the revenue generated under the previous assessment in FY 2001. Hearing Nov. 8; comments due Nov. 12. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hearings/01099290_phn.pdf (notice) and http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/rule_lib/proposals/01099290_pro.pdf (proposal)

The Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules has given final approval to the revised Vermont Solid Waste Management Plan. The plan, available at http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/wmd.htm, will have an effective date of Nov. 1; the 18-month clock for municipalities and districts to submit complete implementation plans will start on that date. For further information about the solid waste plan, contact Andrea Cohen at (802) 241-2368.

Air Pollution Control Board; Proposed NOx SIP Call Implementation. See http://www.deq.state.va.us/pdf/air/planning/D9805PC.pdf and http://www.deq.state.va.us/pdf/air/planning/D9804TP.pdf for background information. In general, DEQ is seeking comment regarding how to redraft the proposed regulation to meet the federal requirements. However, there are specific issues relative to the changes required by the new legislation on which DEQ is seeking comment. The department is also seeking comment on how to redraft the proposed regulation to address the U.S. EPA comments in combination with a June 8, 2001, decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia remanding the growth factors that U.S. EPA used for the electric generating unit emissions budgets in the NOx SIP Call Rule for reconsideration. In addition, there are specific issues on which DEQ is seeking comment, as noted in the background document. See generally http://www.deq.state.va.us/air/planning/noxsip.html.

Air Pollution Control Board; proposed revisions of Regulations for the Control of Motor Vehicle Emissions in the Northern Virginia Area (9 VAC 5-91). The purpose of the proposed action is to develop amendmentswhich will conform the regulation to state law and federal Clean Air Act requirements for the testing of emissions from motor vehicles located or primarily operated in Northern Virginia. Hearing Nov. 13 in Woodbridge. See http://www.townhall.state.va.us/meeting/viewMeeting.cfm?MEETING_ID=1368

Waste Management Board; Hearings Nov. 26, 27, and 29 regarding Voluntary Remediation Regulations-Amendment 1. Amendment of the Voluntary Remediation Regulations based on a periodic review of the regulations that has determined that the regulations need, among other things, updating to include current sampling and analysis methods and deletion of obsolete language. See http://www.townhall.state.va.us/meeting/viewMeeting.cfm?MEETING_ID=1420

Waste Management Board; Public Hearing-Regulated Medical Waste Management Regulations Proposed Amendments. Hearings Jan. 4, 7, and 8, 2002. As a result of a periodic review of the Regulated Medical Waste Management Regulation, the Virginia Waste Management Board is considering amendment of the regulation to include, but not be limited to, the issue of storage of separately accumulated objects for personal hygiene, the issue of temporary storage and such other issues which may result from public comment on the NOIRA or activities of the technical advisory committee established to assist in the development of any proposal. See http://www.townhall.state.va.us/action/ViewAction.cfm?vac=210&chapter=120&action=392

Air Pollution Control Board; Public hearing Nov. 27-Rev. D00-Permits for Major Stationary and Major Modifications Locating in Nonattainment Areas. Will amend Chapter 80 to bring the regulation into compliance with federal regulation and policy including, but not limited to, amendments to reflect permit requirements regarding emission offsets associated with the designation of nonattainment areas. See http://www.townhall.state.va.us/meeting/viewMeeting.cfm?MEETING_ID=1387

Nov. 13 APCB hearing regarding proposed amendments to the Regulation for the Control of Motor Vehicle Emissions in Northern Virginia (Rev. MG). The purpose of the proposed action is to develop amendments that will conform the regulation to state law and federal CAA requirements for the testing of emissions from motor vehicles located or primarily operated in Northern Virginia. See http://www.townhall.state.va.us/meeting/viewMeeting.cfm?MEETING_ID=1368

Hearings Jan. 8 and 9, 2002, regarding Water Quality Standards-Bacteria and Ammonia Criteria. Amendments to the water quality standards regulation to include updating surface water criteria for ammonia in freshwater, new alternative indicators for assessing bacterial water quality, updated contact recreational use designations for primary and secondary and/or seasonal uses, etc. See http://www.townhall.state.va.us/meeting/viewMeeting.cfm?MEETING_ID=1479

Nov. 14 meeting; DEQ Land Quality Division and the Water Quality Division will hold a joint board meeting to discuss the proposed Department policy on in situ groundwater classification and restoration. The meeting will be held in the Arena Classroom at the Natrona County Fairgrounds located at 2011 Fairgrounds Rd., Casper, Wyoming. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. See http://deq.state.wy.us/lqd/Events/insituclassification2.pdf

Changes to rules on identification of interests, placement of spoil outside the mined-out area, self-bonding; permit revisions, incremental bonds, incidental changes to permits, and termination of jurisdiction (this package contains changes approved by the Land Quality Advisory Board on Apr.12, 2001). This revised package now requires approval by the Environmental Quality Council. A public hearing to receive comments on this rule package will be held Dec. 7 at 1:00 p.m. in the Medicine Bow Room of the Outreach School, 1731 Fraternity Row, Laramie, WY. See http://deq.state.wy.us/lqd/Events/1-Osoprtoeqc5-22.pdf2.pdf

The U.N. Economic Commission for Europe's Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, also known as the Aarhus Convention, entered into force.

As the Morocco Kyoto implementation meeting began, ITAR-Tass reported that Russia will ratify the treaty only if implementation mechanisms are in the Russian national interest. Yuri Fedotov, head of the Russian delegation in Marrakech, said the mechanisms must be economically viable and politically nondiscriminatory. "It is necessary to create a juridical framework, with consideration for a pragmatic approach based on our economic possibilities, that would allow working out balanced mechanisms of implementing the Kyoto Protocol, on the one hand, and ensure the most noble aim of reducing the anthropogenic load of the climate, on the other," Fedotov said. The mechanisms "should not create barriers on the road of socio-economic development of state members of this process--including Russia, of course," he noted.